|Object-oriented parsers email@example.com (1991-08-29)|
|Re: Object-oriented parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-29)|
|Re: Object-oriented parsers email@example.com (1991-08-30)|
|Re: Object-oriented parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-30)|
|Object-oriented parsers email@example.com (1991-09-02)|
|Re: Object-oriented parsers firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-09-03)|
|Date:||3 Sep 1991 08:58:39-BST|
In article 91-08-150 email@example.com (Steve Boswell) writ
>Actually, the only reason I suggested CLOS was that it allowed dynamic
>binding on its arguments and not just the object. (I know C++ does
>too, but I personally dislike C++.) This approach would also lend
>itself to languages being extended/redefined, which languages tend to
>do now and then.
Point of information: C++ does not allow dynamic binding on feature
arguments. It allows overloading of feature names and uses type
information to disambiguate the different features. As Dr. Meyer has
pointed out, this is static, not dynamic.
Telex: 995016 GECRES G | Tel: +44 245 73331
Inet: firstname.lastname@example.org | Fax: +44 245 75244
[I thought recent versions of C++ had at least limited dynamic binding.-John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.