Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!iwm
From: iwm@icdoc.UUCP (Ian Moor)
Newsgroups: net.lang.mod2
Subject: Re:  overloading
Message-ID: <295@ivax.icdoc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 17:01:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ivax.295
Posted: Thu Mar  6 17:01:57 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 18:55:04 EST
References: <8603040446.AA04991@uw-beaver.arpa> <274@daimi.UUCP>
Reply-To: iwm@icdoc.UUCP (Ian Moor)
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK.
Lines: 24

In article <274@daimi.UUCP> jnp@daimi.UUCP (J|rgen N|rgaard) writes:
> Why not extent this implicit overloading an make it
>explicit and let user-defined overloading be allowed ? 
>In my opinion the distinction between (some) predefined 'overloaded'
>routines and user-defined routines is frustrating.

Having implemented a language with overloading (Hope) I found that
the same mechanism for handling overloading of predefined routines 
can be applied to user-defined ones, determine the type of the arguments 
and compare with the possibilities to determine which code to produce.

It is most frustating to find a language where predefined functions
are 'special' - after all if the compiler can cope with them it should
be able to manage user defined  ones.

-- 
Ian W Moor
  UUCP: seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!iwm
  ARPA: iwm%icdoc@ucl                        
           
 Department of Computing   Whereat a great and far-off voice was heard, saying,
 Imperial College.         Poop-poop-poopy, and it was even so; and the days
 180 Queensgate            of Poopy Panda were long in the land.
 London SW7 Uk.