Re: Smart variables, dumb variables

[Rob Browning]

address@hidden writes:

> oops, i forgot to mention goops. I was thinking of GOOPS generic 
> metods:
> |  
> |  (define-generic +)
> |  (define-method (+ (a <string>) (b <string>))
> |    (string-append a b))
> |  
> |  (+ 41 1)
> |  => 42
> |  
> |  (+ "Foo" "bar")
> |  => "Foobar"
> |  

[...]

> In the presence of a generic method system (i.e. function dispatch on
> the type signature of the arguments) this seems to be rather non-trivial

Though I believe some languages (Dylan?, and perhaps also RScheme),
allow you to declare some functions/methods as "sealed".  Doing so
means that it should be an error for them to change values, or
"specialized", and the compiler can perform agressive optimizations on
them in the relevant code regions.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD