 | | From: | igouy at yahoo.com | | Subject: | Re: Static vs dynamic | | Date: | 13 Jan 2005 12:02:45 -0800 |
|
|
 | > dynamically typed polymorphism
The "extra" we see in dynamically type checked languages has often been
called "ad-hoc polymorphism" (more specifically "overloading").
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cardelli85understanding.html
|
|
| | From: | Thomas G. Marshall | | Subject: | Re: Static vs dynamic | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:32:05 GMT |
|
|
| igouy@yahoo.com coughed up:
>> dynamically typed polymorphism
>
> The "extra" we see in dynamically type checked languages has often
> been called "ad-hoc polymorphism" (more specifically "overloading").
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cardelli85understanding.html
Ad-hoc poly-m does not require dynamically typed languages. I'm not sure
where you are going with this.
The "extra we see in dynamically type checked languages" regarding
polymorphism is that you can achieve it entirely WITHOUT inheritance.
--
http://www.allexperts.com is a nifty way to get an answer to just about
/anything/.
|
|
