From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Do we have to worry about the names of generic functions? Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 20:40:38 +0100 Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <1084563638.32494.72.camel@localhost> References: <1084358048.15175.235.camel@localhost> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1084636086 28310 80.91.224.253 (15 May 2004 15:48:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 15:48:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile Users Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 15 17:47:56 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BP1OG-0000hy-00 for ; Sat, 15 May 2004 17:47:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BP1NQ-00066C-Oy for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 11:47:04 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BP1Ld-0005i2-LY for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 11:45:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BP1L3-0005eB-W3 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 11:45:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [216.166.232.203] (helo=johnson-resources.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1BP1L3-0005dQ-L1 for guile-user@gnu.org; Sat, 15 May 2004 11:44:37 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (mantis.schoolnet.na [::ffff:196.44.140.238]) (AUTH: LOGIN wingo) by johnson-resources.com with esmtp; Sat, 15 May 2004 11:39:31 -0400 Original-Received: from wingo by localhost with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BOiY4-00016s-00; Fri, 14 May 2004 20:40:48 +0100 Original-To: Paul Jarc In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.5.7 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:3175 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:3175 On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 12:14 -0400, Paul Jarc wrote: > Andy Wingo wrote: > > Consider a generic, `output'. I assert that x.output() in Python does > > not clobber the namespace. > > Agreed, because that name exists only within "x.". I'm not sure this is true. Of course python people will agree with you, but contrast it to the message-passing style of programming, where a message only has meaning in as much as the recipient knows how to deal with it. Likewise, output() only means something if `x' has an output field, and generics only have meaning in as much as a method has been specialized for a type. If the generic has not been specialized for a certain type, it won't apply. The corresponding situation would be if x (or a superclass) doesn't define an output() method. I'm not clear on the difference, except wrt collisions with non-generics, which I believe Andreas covered. There is still something inside me saying that modules should not be exporting identifiers like 'field or 'parent. But logic's leading me the other way! Cheers, -- Andy Wingo _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user