Re: Generics vs. Message passing: object namespaces
Pascal Costanza <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.lightweight |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 23 Feb 2007, at 00:14, Tom Locke wrote: >> 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? The simplest answer I can think of is this: Generic functions are just functions, so any approach that solves namespace management issues well for function names is automatically also good enough for generic function names. Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:[email protected], http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium