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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) Subject: Re: Real OO Date: 1996/05/08 Message-ID: <4mqbls$vtc@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 153743057 distribution: world references: <4mls4h$sau@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1996-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: |> Norman H. Cohen lectures Joachim (but in doing so provides a good summary of |> classwide operations): I didn't intend for it to come off as "lecturing Joachim", and I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was just trying to clear up a misconception that many people may well have shared. |> As the equivalent Eiffel shows, the term 'classwide operation' is misleading. |> An operation may be dispatching WRT one parameter but classwide WRT another. |> It is more accurate to speak of classwide operands rather than classwide |> operations. This is a good observation. In the vast majority of naturally occurring examples, the tagged formal parameters tend to be all classwide or all specific (specific = not classwide) and we can get away with informally referring to classwide operations, but in cases like the artificial examples I discussed you are quite right. -- Norman H. Cohen ncohen@watson.ibm.com