Re: Static, dynamic and Lisp types.
- From: "Alex Mizrahi" <udodenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:33:28 +0300
(message (Hello 'acaradesapo@xxxxxxxxx)
(you :wrote :on '(Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:36:42 -0000))
(
a> Do there is a name for a language like this, that is, creating a new
a> name for the
a> same concept with different arguments?
Non OO.
Lisp allows functions to be both efficient by being specialized to some type
and have generic name.
those are generic functions, of course.
there's often dispatching overhead associated with them, so they might be
not that efficient.
BUT in theory it should be possible for implementation to know argument
types via type inference (or whatever) and to inline a specific method call
(or method itself!) into caller.
however, i don't know if any of implementations actually implement such
optimizations. also, methods of generic function can be changed in runtime,
and so if method was inlined that function should be recompiled, or
something like that..
so i think there's a solution to make it absolutely effective, if somebody
really wants to
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"Hanging In The Balance Of Deceit And Blasphemy")
.
- References:
- Static, dynamic and Lisp types.
- From: acaradesapo
- Static, dynamic and Lisp types.
- Prev by Date: Re: Static, dynamic and Lisp types.
- Next by Date: Re: what do you think of this macros and functions?
- Previous by thread: Re: Static, dynamic and Lisp types.
- Next by thread: Re: Static, dynamic and Lisp types.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
