Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!ajpo!eberard
From: eberard@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Edward Berard)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: "Ad Hoc Polymorphism" -- I'm Quoting Someone Else
Keywords: ad hoc polymorphism, reference to original use
Message-ID: <646@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 9 Jan 90 01:29:27 GMT
Lines: 33

Jim Adcock has admonished me as follows:

	"Can you please choose some other descriptor rather than "ad
	hoc polymorphism" ???  This term is not descriptive, is being
	applied to a technique that is certainly *not* "ad hoc," and
	sounds like it is intended to be prejudicial terminology --
	which I'm sure was not your intent!"

I try not to invent terminology -- there is too much already. So, I
try to use terms as I found them. Initially, all I had to worry about
was (plain) "polymorphism." However, it quickly became apparent that
there were several distinct forms of polymorphism. So I looked for
terminology which seemed to be already in use to describe the different
forms. 

In the August 1989 issue of _Computer__Language_ (Vol. 6, No. 8),
there is an article by Richard P. Gabriel, titled "Using the Common
LISP Object System." The following paragraph is from page 77 of that
article: 

	"CLOS uses a technique called the generic function approach.
	Common LISP -- and most LISPs -- support ad hoc polymorphism.
	In ordinary polymorphism, the definition of an operation is
	such that it is insensitive to the types of arguments passed
	to it. In ad hoc polymorphism, the types of the arguments are
	examined and appropriate code executed."

If you recognize this type of polymorphism as having a different name,
and can cite two, or more, earlier references, I will consider using
a different name. (Heck! I'll even take _one_ earlier reference. ;-))

				-- Ed Berard
				   (301) 353-9652