Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!jvnca!njitsc1!argus!bmc
From: bmc@argus.UUCP (Bob Czech)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: declarations vs smalltalk
Message-ID: <943@argus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Jul-87 22:06:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: argus.943
Posted: Thu Jul  2 22:06:23 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 08:59:37 EDT
References: <245100009@orstcs>
Organization: NJ Instit of Tech, Newark NJ
Lines: 19


 In article <245100009@orstcs>, budd@orstcs.cs.ORST.EDU writes:
 > 
 > 4. Types are considered as part of the message pattern for the purposes of
 > method lookup.  (This is an extension of object message lookup, where the
 > types of arguments other than the first may also be important).  This would
 > seem to be the most general solution, since the only overhead involved is
 > that of method lookup, not argument checking, and tricks such as caching
 > can be used to speed up message lookup.  Never the less, the Smalltalk
 > notion of class is not the most useful concept of type that could be
 > envisioned, and again this limits polymorphism.
 > 

	I see it as a way of cutting out the run time overhead of a message
lookup with typing of variables.  In this way the exact method is bound to the
variable during compile time.  There is no need for a message lookup at runtime
because you have the class of the recevier already specified.

	Are there any versions of smalltalk around that use early binding?