From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,19d0849c68914783 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com Subject: Re: Design problem using Multiple Dispatch or Redispatch (long) Date: 2000/03/14 Message-ID: <0dvz4.1553$U3.65019@news.pacbell.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 597431172 References: <38CDAA56.36B9E1C1@yahoo.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 953057212 207.214.211.3 (Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:06:52 PST) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:06:52 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-03-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Suppose you could have a two dimension dispatch table and dispatch on both parameters in Execute(A_Processor, A_Command); You said different processors execute different subsets of commands, so, since the table couldn't have any holes, you would have to have dummy entries - returning an error condition, say. That means that any time you add a new command, you'll have to add it, or at least a dummy Execute for it, to each processor, and each time you add a processor it will need Execute's for all known commands. Is that OK?