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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,604e0f87aa06eab6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-03-25 23:48:40 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: amir@iae.nsk.su (Amir Yantimirov)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
Date: 25 Mar 2003 23:48:40 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5115eb96.0303252348.5af58c61@posting.google.com>
References: <mailman.0.1047662587.16695.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <4dkea.75440$gi1.38045@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
 <vqil7v81l8p8ocbv2ke9ectl8l33rr3gs8@4ax.com>
 <5115eb96.0303220201.44527637@posting.google.com>
 <b5jrs4$2a6fho$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <5115eb96.0303232053.2fcc7d78@posting.google.com>
 <b5nhiq$29oaug$2@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <5115eb96.0303242148.57027600@posting.google.com>
 <6Y_fa.5102$kU.534@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <wccn0jjv1jo.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.1.215.198
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1048664920 28348 127.0.0.1 (26 Mar 2003 07:48:40
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Mar 2003 07:48:40 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:35711
Date: 2003-03-26T07:48:40+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<wccn0jjv1jo.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>...
> "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> writes:
> 
> > If there is a way to get the effect of tagged scalar types without a big hit
> > on efficiency, however, it would certainly be helpful.

<snip>

> So the question is whether a language can provide extensible scalars
> with dispatching calls without slowing code that doesn't need that
> power.  I think the answer is yes: don't store the tag with every
> object.  Instead, gin it up when calling a class-wide operation.
> So "+" on normal (non-class-wide) integers can be a single machine
> instruction, and integers can be stored as a single word.  The compiler
> can determine when to gin up a tag -- no need for explicit boxing
> operations.
> 
> - Bob

Exactly. Only in my C++ head it is sounds as "address of particular
interface dispatch routine" instead of "tag". :)

http://www174.pair.com/yamir/programming/interfaces.htm

Amir Yantimirov