Re: Keyword Arguments

On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 16:46 -0700, Steve Dekorte wrote:
>   
> 
> On 2012-06-22 Fri, at 03:16 PM, Alexander Shpilkin wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:59 -0700, Steve Dekorte wrote:
> > 
> >> Multiple dispatch makes the deep assumption that a notion of
> external
> >> type exists. But what notion of type can deal with something like a
> >> proxy which is, in effect, all possible types? Or from another
> angle:
> >> any system that depends on a notion of type that is anything more
> than
> >> asking an object what it choses to do at the moment violates
> >> encapsulation in ways that have serious consequences for what the
> >> system can and can't do.
> > 
> > Have you considered the Dylan approach to multiple dispatch? As far
> as I
> > remember you can implement the usual generic method semantics on top
> of
> > an existing purely prototype-based object model as long as one can
> > distinguish between a message send understood by the object itself
> and
> > one understood by one of its prototypes. And you don't have to in
> case
> > the object needs to have some special dispatch behavior.
> 
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> What does a type mean in Dylan exactly?

Whoops... I'm very sorry. Turns out the language I was thinking about
was not Dylan but Slate[1]. And it doesn't have types. It has a
prototype-based object system, with no types/classes whatsoever. Still
it does multiple dispatch[2].

Alex

[1] http://slatelanguage.org/
[2] http://files.slatelanguage.org/doc/pmd/ecoop.pdf