Re: the forward method [dynamic vs. static typing]

[Chris Page <address@hidden>]

On Dec 9, 2003, at 19:20, Ken Shan wrote:

> On 2003-12-09T18:16:51-0800, Chris Page wrote:
>> I don't see what this has to do with static or dynamic typing. It has 
>> more to do with whether or not your language allows for some type of 
>> polymorphism so you can use the same function/message name, which is 
>> an orthogonal concern. Dylan, Lisp, Smalltalk and C++ all allow for 
>> this.
>
> I don't know of any language said to be dynamically typed that allows 
> for dispatch based on return type; do you?

Dylan, Lisp, Smalltalk and C++. In the sense that a compiler can look 
at the return type of a function A and use that to dispatch a 
subsequent call to function B (when you pass the result of A to B).

However, I suppose what you mean is that you want to dispatch a call to 
A based upon the types of the arguments given to it, and the argument 
type(s) of function B? Interesting, but is it useful? Can you provide 
an example?

-- 
Chris Page - Software Wrangler - palmOne, Inc.

   Dylan + You = Code
   <http://www.gwydiondylan.org/>
   <http://www.cafepress.com/chrispage>