Re: Appropriate methods for argument checking

Dara Gallagher <jgllgher@maths.tcd.ie>
31 Jul 1996 19:31:26 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Appropriate methods for argument checking clodius@nis.lanl.gov (William Clodius) (1996-07-22)
Re: Appropriate methods for argument checking grout@polestar.csrd.uiuc.edu (1996-07-23)
Re: Appropriate methods for argument checking chase@centerline.com (1996-07-26)
Re: Appropriate methods for argument checking jgllgher@maths.tcd.ie (Dara Gallagher) (1996-07-31)
Re: Appropriate methods for argument checki chase@centerline.com (1996-08-05)
Re: Appropriate methods for argument checki rwh@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Harper) (1996-08-09)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Dara Gallagher <jgllgher@maths.tcd.ie>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 31 Jul 1996 19:31:26 -0400
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
References: 96-07-144 96-07-178
Keywords: design, debug

chase@centerline.com (David Chase) writes:
> If you use parametric polymorphism, the variable type is actually polymorphic:


> T (*f)(T) <type T> = f_of_char_yielding_char;
> T (*f)(T) <type T> = f_of_short_yielding_short;


No; the only if f has the above type then it must accept arguments of any
type (and return a result of the same type). In many type theories, the
only such function is the polymorphic identity function. The lack of
polymorphism in traditional languages like Pascal, etc. means that the
programmer would be forced to write seperate definitions for the boolean
identity function, the integer identity function, etc. even though the
bodies would be identical.


The identity function may seem like a useless example; however consider a
similar situation where the programmer has to write seperate sort functions
for arrays of integers, arrays of floats, arrays of strings, etc. Modern
functional languages which support polymorphism (such as Haskell or SML)
solve this and similar problems very elegantly.


<snip further comments on parametric polymorphism>


I'm not really sure, but it looks like you're confusing
parametric polymorphism with existential types. I.e.
you seem to be referring to (using your C syntax)
T (*f)(T) <for some type T>
rather than parametric polymorphism or
T (*f)(T) <for all types T>


Cheers, Dara. --
_______________________________________________________________
Dara Gallagher. http://www.cs.tcd.ie/www/jgllgher/jgllgher.html
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.