|Java static binding for parameters and covariance/contravariance email@example.com (Lujop) (2004-11-19)|
|Re: Java static binding for parameters and covariance/contravariance firstname.lastname@example.org (Eric Bodden) (2004-11-20)|
|Re: Java static binding for parameters and covariance/contravariance email@example.com (2004-11-20)|
|Re: Java static binding for parameters and covariance/contravariance firstname.lastname@example.org (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2004-11-20)|
|Re: Java static binding for parameters and covariance/contravariance email@example.com (Lujop) (2004-11-26)|
|Re: Java static binding for parameters and covariance/contravariance firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-11-26)|
|Re: Java static binding for parameters and covariance/contravariance email@example.com (Ivan Boldyrev) (2004-11-28)|
|From:||"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||20 Nov 2004 21:22:23 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||20 Nov 2004 21:22:23 EST|
On 19 Nov 2004 00:53:07 -0500, Lujop wrote:
> I don't know if this is a little offtopic because is more a language
> question, but like languages and compilers are related to... Well,
> it's nice to have a moderator to decide this ;)
> I'm writing a compiler for a pseudocode language that also has to work
> as a translator to Java code. Then I am limited to Java features
> (extensions like multijava can't be applied) ...
> Java uses static binding for parameters. And only uses overriding when
> the signature of the method is the same (This is the invariant way,
> isn't it?).
> I think that the best way is to be able to use dynamic binding for
> parameters like (MultiJava extension) allows. But I can't do this
> because the restriction to generate Java code.
> Then my problem is that I thinked to use a contravariant way for
> parameters in my language. And don't allow to "overwrite" the method
> m(A) in class B with method m(B) where B<=A.
> And only allow to override parameters methods in a contravariant way.
> I think that this is less powerful, but it's more clear than Java and
> less error prone. Because in java when you "override" m(A) whith m(B),
> you are overloading (not overriding) and I think that is very confuse,
> and isn't very util, and very error prone. In fact Effective Java from
> one of Java library architects has a norm that says that you don't have
> do it.
> Then, my question is. What do you think that's better? What Java
> does, or what I proposed? Can you give my some readings about it? Are
> my terms correct (refering to covariance,contravariance and
Better is to always make m(A) a method in A. This is how Ada 95 works:
if m is a method of A (= a primitive operation in Ada terms), then any
parameter of m of the type A is a subject of dispatch (= controlled in
Ada term). As such it is:
1) always covariant
2) to be overridden
type A is tagged ...;
procedure m (X : in out A; Y : A);
-- m is dispatching in both X and Y
type B is new A with ...; -- Derived from A
procedure m (X : in out B; Y : B);
-- overrides, covariant in X and Y
procedure m (X : in out A; Y : B);
-- illegal in the same scope as A
However Ada would allow the latter if B would be derived from A in
another package. In which case it would overload.
I agree with you that this behavior is error prone and should be
always illegal. Especially, because for contravariance Ada has a
concept of a class-wide type. That is for the example above:
procedure m (X : in out A'Class; Y : A);
Here m is a method in Y (=> covariant), but a "class-wide" in X (=>
contravariant). Ada allows overloading A'Class with A, B, B'Class etc,
which in my view is a design inaccuracy. I would not allow that under
any circumstances. So to me the rule of thumb is:
The language should not allow overloading A with B in a parameter if
there is a common ancestor C.
N.B. To be consistent this would also require an implementation of
multiple dispatch, which many OO languages seem trying to avoid at any
Dmitry A. Kazakov
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.