Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!world!esegue!compilers-sender
From: voss@suna0.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Defining polymorphism vs. overloading
Keywords: polymorphism
Message-ID: <9009150423.AA06098@sunc7.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 15 Sep 90 04:23:32 GMT
Sender: compilers-sender@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: voss@suna0.cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 19
Approved: compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us

> 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
-- 
Send compilers articles to compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us
{ima | spdcc | world}!esegue.  Meta-mail to compilers-request@esegue.