This is the mail archive of the
guile@cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: records
- To: guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
- Subject: Re: records
- From: Peter Chang <pchang@alumni.stanford.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:09:29 -0700
- Reply-To: weasel@cs.stanford.edu
At 19:57 +0200 07.23.1999, Jost Boekemeier wrote:
Chris Bitmead <chris@tech.com.au> writes:
>> In C++/Eiffel terminology, scheme `display' is, or at least appears
>> to be polymorphic.
> No. In Bertrand Meyer's terminology `display% is generic. See page
> 1168 the generic SWAP procedure. The example is written in ADA but
> even standard C has genericity:
>
> #define SWAP(x, y) {x^=y;y^=x;x^=y} /* constrained genericity */
I don't know any eiffel, but as a c snippet I would hardly call this
genericity. It really isn't taking the types of the arguments into
account: xor has to have integer type arguments and promotions will
happen such that both operands have compatible types.
>> From the OO FAQ...
>> "Parametric polymorphism,... Ad-hoc polymorphism"
> I don't know which terminology the author of the "OO FAQ" uses but
> when we apply the standard OO terminology then "parametric
> polymorphism" is simply nonsense.
I think that this comes from the type theory way of thinking about the
subject rather than oo terminology as used in the field. At least,
this is similar to what was talked about when I was in school.
\p