Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxm!mhuxo!ulysses!allegra!princeton!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!labrea!figaro!asente
From: asente@figaro.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: OBJ2 and Smalltalk
Message-ID: <277@figaro.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: Mon, 2-Feb-87 17:59:35 EST
Article-I.D.: figaro.277
Posted: Mon Feb  2 17:59:35 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Feb-87 05:10:45 EST
References: <4000001@nucsrl.UUCP> <3288@milano.UUCP>
Reply-To: asente@figaro.UUCP (Paul Asente)
Organization: Stanford University CIS Apple Orchard
Lines: 18
Keywords: Useful queues?

In article <741@unc.unc.UUCP> rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) writes:
>Q: 'Can Stack( mixed types ) be written, without using either
>  subtypes or parameterized types?'
>OBJ2: no.  Smalltalk: yes.

This has been bothering me for some time.  In addition to claiming the
ease of programming without having to specify types, advocates of
totally untyped systems (like Smalltalk) always dredge up the example of
having a queue (or stack or list...) that allows arbitrarily mixed
data to be enqueued.  In all my years of programming I have never wanted
to do anything like this.  I'd be interested in hearing from

   1) anyone who had needed to do this or something similar
   2) anyone who thinks doing this is good programming style, or
   3) anyone who can come up with a better example of why unconstrained
      polymorphism is a good thing in a language.

	-paul asente