Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading

voss@suna0.cs.uiuc.edu
Fri, 14 Sep 90 23:23:32 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[12 earlier articles]
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading ok@goanna.cs.rmit.OZ.AU (1990-09-07)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading pardo@cs.washington.edu (1990-09-07)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading pardo@cs.washington.edu (1990-09-07)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading mmengel@cuuxb.ATT.COM (1990-09-11)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading freek@fwi.uva.nl (1990-09-10)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (1990-09-13)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading voss@suna0.cs.uiuc.edu (1990-09-14)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading stt@inmet.inmet.com (1990-09-15)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading px@fctunl.rccn.pt (1990-09-20)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading pcg@compsci.aberystwyth.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (1990-09-20)
Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading chip@soi.com (Chip Morris) (1990-09-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: voss@suna0.cs.uiuc.edu
Keywords: polymorphism
Organization: Compilers Central
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 23:23:32 -0500

> What we really want is to be able to express notationally:
> * reuse of interface
> * reuse of semantics
> * reuse of implementation


How about a positive example of what you want? From my Smalltalk-80 & C++
background, it looks to me as though the following are basically equivalent.


Overloading <=> * reuse of interface
Polymorphism <=> * reuse of semantics
Inheritance <=> * reuse of implementation


NOTE: reuse of implementation seems to require reuse of semantics.
--
Bill Voss -- Graduate Student -- Department of Computer Science
voss@cs.uiuc.edu University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
--

Post a followup to this message

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