This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <bothner@cygnus.com> writes:
Per> If you suggest using the MOP then you're basically agreeing that
Per> multi-methods are not useful for real systems.
I do not understand this argument. In what way are using the MOP in
contrast to using multimethods?
Obviously there are important choices to be made as to how one
explroes a grid of methods. The MOP allows you to adjust the way the
method lookup process explores that grid, but I can not see this as
somehow circumventing or undermining the basic idea of multimethods.
In fact, having the MOP is perhaps one of the more important
counter-arguments to the manual dispatch argument. Clearly, any one
strategy isn't good enough for all applications, so having control
over the process increases the range of problems solved by
multimethods.
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Telebit Communications A/S
Fax: +45 8628 8186 | Fabrik 11, DK-8260 Viby J
Phone: +45 8628 8177 + 28 | email: chl@tbit.dk --- URL: http://www.telebit.dk
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)