At 5:41 PM -0700 9/3/02, David Wheeler wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 05:08 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>>We call that concept "multimethod dispatch". That's what you're asking for.
>
>Dan, can you explain what "multimethod dispatch" is?
Damian can explain it better than I can, but it's
On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 06:12 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Damian can explain it better than I can, but it's essentially when you
> dispatch based on sub or method signature. You're allowed to have
> multiple versions of a single sub as long as they differ in their
> parameter signatur
David Wheeler wrote:
> Ah, yes, the same thing exists in Java. I remember, now.
I thought Java only has over loading?
Over loading is what C++ has. It is not the same as
multi-dispatch. The trouble with over loading is that the
compiler uses static (compile-time) type information to
select the o
From: Ken Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Over loading is what C++ has. It is not the same as
> multi-dispatch. The trouble with over loading is that the
> compiler uses static (compile-time) type information to
> select the over loaded method. This can create subtle
> bugs when people try to re-use code
At 9:10 AM -0400 9/4/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>From: Ken Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Over loading is what C++ has. It is not the same as
>> multi-dispatch. The trouble with over loading is that the
>> compiler uses static (compile-time) type information to
>> select the over loaded method.
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 06:58 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> No. They can be both compile time things or runtime things, depending
> on the characteristics of the language.
So if it's compile-time for a given language, how is it different from
the Java concept of overloading?
And will
At 7:31 AM -0700 9/4/02, David Wheeler wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 06:58 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>>No. They can be both compile time things or runtime things,
>>depending on the characteristics of the language.
>
>So if it's compile-time for a given language, how is it differen
Just some thoughts (and an idea):
I have found the whole context thing in Perl5 easier to understand when I regard it as
overloading based on the return type. We all know that languages like C, C++ and Java
throw a compile-time error if two function
definitions differ in their return type only
The specific definitions of these terms vary from language to
language. In Java, for instance, a method is said to be
"overloaded" and/or "overridden".
An "overloaded" method is actually two or more methods with the
same name but differing numbers/types of parameters (which Java
calls the "signa
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> Dan, can you explain what "multimethod dispatch" is?
>
> Damian can explain it better than I can,
I thought you did a great job!
However, anyone who wants to know more about multiple dispatch
might also like to read:
http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1274/sam050
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 9:10 AM -0400 9/4/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So, just to clarify, does that mean that multi-dispatch is (by
>> definition)
>> a run-time thing, and overloading is (by def) a compile time thing?
>
> No. They can be both compile time things or runtime things, dependin
At 9:27 PM -0400 9/4/02, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>At 9:10 AM -0400 9/4/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>So, just to clarify, does that mean that multi-dispatch is (by definition)
>>>a run-time thing, and overloading is (by def) a compile time thing?
>>
>>No. They can be both compile ti
> Apologies if I've missed some earlier discussions on multimethods. The
> apocolypses, exegesises and synopses don't seem to say much other than
> (a) they will exist and (b) wait for apocolypse 12 for more information.
>
> Looking over RFC 256[*] and Class::Multimethods[**] it sounds like the
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> It will still have a lot of power in text processing, and still be a
> powerful "quicky" language, but that's no longer its primary focus --
> not to say that highly structured programming is.
So, uh, what is?
> And you can still do it the Perl 5 way in P
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 10:44:02PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> You must not be following Perl 6 closely enough, then. Perl 6 is a
> "real" programming language now, as opposed to a "scripting" language.
Um, I've followed Perl6 closely enough to know that the distinction
between "real langauge" an
Adam Turoff writes:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 10:44:02PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > It will still have a lot of power in text processing, and still be a
> > powerful "quicky" language, but that's no longer its primary focus --
> > not to say that highly structured programming is. Some applicati
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:34:14AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> What it seems you're wanting is it to be in the core. And I'm saying
> that's irrelavent. There are thousands of great ideas out there, and
> they can't all fit into Perl's core. That's why there's thousands of
> modules on CPAN.
H
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:34:14AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> And I don't see what's stopping someone from writing Dispatch::Value.
>
> use Dispatch::Value;
> sub foo($param is value('param1')) {...}
> sub foo($param is value('param2')) {...}
>
> What it seems you're wanting is it to
> A better fitting solution wouldn't focus on classic
> MMD, but simply "Dispatch", where type- and value-based
> dispatching are two of many kinds of dispatching supported.
I've always liked the sound of Linda's tuple spaces
and view that as a nice generalized dispatch approach.
Procedure calls
> A better fitting solution wouldn't focus on classic
> MMD, but simply "Dispatch", where type- and value-based
> dispatching are two of many kinds of dispatching supported.
I've always liked the sound of Linda's tuple spaces
and view that as a nice generalized dispatch approach.
Procedure calls
20 matches
Mail list logo
