Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!megatest!djones
From: djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: overloading vs. virtual functions
Message-ID: <15488@prometheus.megatest.UUCP>
Date: 4 Mar 91 21:25:49 GMT
References: <1991Feb25.201923.14554@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca
Lines: 9

From article <1991Feb25.201923.14554@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca), by craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley):
) In article <27C2D4B8.3AD3@tct.uucp) chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
))According to craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley):
)))The fact that C++ implements the two mechanisms [virtual functions and
)))overloaded functions] so as to create (in my opinion) counter-intuitive
)))effects is (in my opinion) a flaw in C++.  That is, the programmer must
)))be very much aware of the "seam" between compile-time and run-time ...

Anybody who can not handle this "seam" should be programming in LOGO.