Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!cs.man.ac.uk!mario From: mario@cs.man.ac.uk (Mario Wolczko) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: The Emperor Strikes Back Message-ID: <2217@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> Date: 1 Mar 91 20:46:29 GMT References: <3351@sequent.cs.qmw.ac.uk> Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk Reply-To: mario@cs.man.ac.uk (Mario Wolczko) Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester Lines: 26 In the Grandi-Johnson debate, I take PCG's side: dynamic binding is *not* essential to OOP, and cite POOL-T as a perfectly good OO language without dynamic binding. In fact, I think PCG has explained what constitutes OOP pretty well (rather better than most published material!) However, this part has me really foxed: > Smalltalk/Actor oriented people, being locked in this particular > implementation of the overload resolver, are blinkered and cannot see > that what they call "dynamic binding" is really dynamic overload (on > just the first argument!) resolution and has nothing to do with scoping, > and is not an essential aspect of the system, while scoping is essential > to keep together the attributes of a class (for traditional class based > OO systems, e.g. not CLOS). If what we call "dynamic binding" is really "dynamic overload resolution" (a term I have never heard before), then what *is* "dynamic binding"? Are you restricting the term to non-lexically-scoped variables (aka "special" or "fluid") as in Lisp? Mario Wolczko ______ Dept. of Computer Science Internet: mario@cs.man.ac.uk /~ ~\ The University uucp: mcsun!ukc!man.cs!mario ( __ ) Manchester M13 9PL JANET: mario@uk.ac.man.cs `-': :`-' U.K. Tel: +44-61-275 6146 (FAX: 6280) ____; ;_____________the mushroom project___________________________________