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,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: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Real OO Date: 1996/05/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 153552439 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4mls4h$sau@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1996-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: [Whole bunch of stuff...] > 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. I'm not clear on why you bring the Eiffel in to support your claim that the term "classwide operation" is misleading. In fact, the Eiffel seems completely irrelevant. There _is_ a (small) problem with the terminology here as you are indicating - specifically when there are mixtures of specific type and classwide type formals in an operation's signature. However, it does seem perfectly clear to say O is a classwide operation when only classwide formals are given. For example, procedure O1 (X: A'Class); function O2 (X: A'Class; Y: B'Class) return C'Class; ... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com