Re: Generics vs. Message passing: object namespaces

> With a good module / package / type system, you can say (append  
> buffer x) when it's unambiguous what you mean, and (buffer:append  
> buffer x) when it's not.

Does "good" mean better than anything we currently have in a  
production-grade language?

CLOS and Dylan do in fact suffer from type-name-in-the-method-name  
syndrome do they not?

This assurance is of little comfort if, in a given (non statically  
typed) language, it's always ambiguous.

Tom