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: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Eiffel and Java + Ada dispatching Date: 1996/11/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 194566671 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: > It's plain that I simplified to help Vincent understand. It's better > to present the usual case and then deal with exceptional cases later > if, and when, necessary. I dealt with the exceptional case when it > Vincent showed that he was confused by the case of multiple > dispatching parameters. Check. > It was also plain from my response that I *do* understand the semantics. Yes, I do agree from some of your other posts (especially the one about "covariant" stuff) that you do understand the semantics. > I don't know why you claim I was in error except perhaps to portray > me as a fool. If so, I won't waste time discussing anything with > you. Nope. Merely that in this particular note you only mentioned the syntax aspects as being all there is. This isn't (strictly speaking) all there is and so was in error. But, as you say you were just avoiding the details. While it is true that early in the "Real OO" thread I thought you were a simple troller (for some very good reasons which we need not bring up) I definitely changed my mind about this. In fact, I have come to see you as clearly contributing worth while stuff to the net. One of the few... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com