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,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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: Thom Brooke Subject: Re: Design problem using Multiple Dispatch or Redispatch (long) Date: 2000/03/15 Message-ID: <38CEF00C.69218384@yahoo.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 597613370 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <38CDAA56.36B9E1C1@yahoo.com> <0dvz4.1553$U3.65019@news.pacbell.net> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 953086168 158.252.164.50 (Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:09:28 PST) Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:09:28 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-03-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: tmoran@bix.com wrote: > > 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? Yes, this would work. And it's kind of along the line I was heading. But I'm really trying to avoid any kind of "explicit dispatching"; I'd like to get the compiler/run-time to do it for me :-) Of course, if that doesn't work, I'll be back to this. Thanks. -- -- Thom Brooke -- Cut out "_CUT_OUT" to get my real email address.