Re: Generics vs. Message passing: object namespaces

On 2/23/07, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If I understand it correctly, your point is that if you need  the draw
> > method from gun, picture, blood, and duel modules, that in an
> > object-dispatch system, you can say:
> >
> > gun.draw args
> > duel.draw args
> > ...etc.
> >
> > instead of
> > (draw_gun gun args)
> >
> > But it seems that it should be trivial to have, in a CLOS-style generic
> > function system, 'draw' bound to a function that would look at the type of
> > its first argument and dispatch to the appropriate GF. Then you'd have:
> >
> > (draw gun args)
> > ...
> > and the only differences would be syntax and the ease with which
> > autocompletion could be done.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
>
>
>     No, I think that is correct, but that is not how CLOS-style generic
> OOP works, the original subject of criticism. [...]

In what way is using dynamic dispatch not how CLOS-style generic OOP
works? I mean, this seems to be pretty much what defgeneric/defmethod
are for.

Regards,
Michael