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: fac41,953e1a6689d791f6
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,953e1a6689d791f6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Eiffel and Java + Ada dispatching
Date: 1996/10/30
Message-ID: <EACHUS.96Oct30175132@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 193422713
references: <550sm2$sn1@buggy.news.easynet.net> <E00t53.CG2@syd.csa.com.au>
organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <557ce3$ojh@tjnews.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> jezequel@piccolo.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Jean-Marc Jezequel) writes:

  > The only thing you really need to make use of OO polymorphism is
  > dynamic binding.  While having at the same time static overloading
  > can make some code fragment more "natural" to write, the apparent
  > proximity of this feature with dynamic binding yield so much
  > confusion on the non-expert eyes that you do not wonder why I
  > prefer to teach Eiffel rather than C++, Java or even Ada95.

   But you just teach it like we have always taught Ada
overloading--if the compiler is happy you don't have a problem. ;-)

   Seriously the combination of dispatching on multiple parameters in
Ada and overloading allows some really neat stuff--but the "simple"
examples are so nasty I'm not going to write them, lest someone copy
without understanding.  Basically if a subprogram has multiple
parameters which it dispatches on, and this can include the return
value, and there is one and only one way to interpret the expression
containing the call, then the dispatching resolves to a single
controlling type.

    If you want the effect of dispatching on multiple parameters, and
this is sometimes useful, you have to break the symmetry in your
declarations:

    function "+"(L: Object; R: Object'CLASS) return Object'CLASS;

    will dispatch only on the first parameter, and you may have a
second dispatching call to complete the dispatch.  (It is the nature
of these completing calls that they should be declared as generics
immediately in the scope containing the type declaration, and
instantiated elsewhere if they need both parameters.) Yes, you can
end up doing N**2 or even N**3 instantiations if the implementation of
the operation requires it.  But that is still a win, since you would
have had to write the individual operations anyway, but the generic
can do part of the work.

    The other case, which is much more useful is where you can use a
single intermediate type.  Now you end up with at most 2N or 3N
functions to write, and often using inheritance to eliminate most of
those.  For example suppose you have a tagged type, and you want to
define heterogenous list type over the class.  No problem, and no
generics or additional declarations required, including for the
operation:

    function "+"(L: Element, R: Element'CLASS) return Element_List;

    The body is:

    function "+"(L: Element, R: Element'CLASS) return Element_List is
    begin return L+New_List(R); end "+";
    
    This body has two dispatching operations.  New_List dispatches on
R, and the + dispatches to the + defined for L's type and List. No
overriding or additional declarations required, since the List type
acts as an intermediate.

    (You can do the same thing with method notation, but it is a lot
harder to get right.  Try it. ;-)
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...