Re: Q: Endless loop by dispatching

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> One should invent a good syntax suggar for this. Which is rather
> difficult. There are actually two things in it:
> 
> 1. There should be a way to declare some primitive operation saying
> that it cannot be overriden completely. One might wish it for things
> like Initialize/Finalize. Then probably there should be a way to say
> where an override is allowed to add something.
> 
> 2. During overriding one should specifiy where the override(s) places
> the extension. I think that it should be specified in the body, while
> the specification should only say that it gets overridden.

Common Lisp (CLOS) has some stuff like this.

> The question is syntax and a good balance between 1. and 2., i.e
> between contract and implementation. The most complicated cases would
> emerge from things like Adjust, I suppose.
> 
> It is also related to an ability to explicitly specify that a
> subroutine is an overriding, not overloading, to avoid undesired
> overloading in case ot typo errors. I do not know whether there is an
> AI on that. If yes, they should be considered together.

Yes, there is such an AI.

- Bob