home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.object
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!network.jyu.fi!sakkinen
- From: sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen)
- Subject: Re: O.M(...) vs M(...), and is the Real World O-O?
- Message-ID: <1992Sep15.100426.20793@jyu.fi>
- Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland
- References: <45jnpm_.objsys@netcom.com> <KERS.92Sep7094418@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <a8wnd++.objsys@netcom.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:04:26 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <a8wnd++.objsys@netcom.com> Bob Hathaway <objsys@netcom.com> writes:
- >In article <KERS.92Sep7094418@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>, kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes:
- > ...
- >>[I'm sure I've asked you this before, Bob, but what's the difference between a
- >>``dynamic'' function and a ``static'' one?]
- >
- >Whether the method/function selection is performed at compile-time (static
- >typing, e.g. C++, Eiffle) or at run-time (dynamic typing, e.g. CLOS, Smalltalk).
- > ...
-
- Oh dear. Method/function selection is certainly performed at run time
- in both C++ (although only for virtual functions) and Eiffel.
- The difference is that Smalltalk and similar languages have
- dynamic ad-hoc polymorphism: any method that just happens to have the same
- name will gladly be invoked.
- Statically typed OOPLs usually have dynamic inclusion polymorphism:
- only functions defined on more or less the same inheritance path
- are eligible.
-
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Markku Sakkinen (sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi)
- SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative network address)
- Department of Computer Science and Information Systems
- University of Jyvaskyla (a's with umlauts)
- PL 35
- SF-40351 Jyvaskyla (umlauts again)
- Finland
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-