From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: hashtable w/o keys stored...
Date: 1999/01/15
Message-ID: <3125416585500895@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 433060337
References: <cxjlnj8zh33.fsf@acs1.bu.edu> <3125273816170693@naggum.no> <wkbtk13mrk.fsf@mit.edu> <3125351611698980@naggum.no> <kQKn2.205$oD6.15990@burlma1-snr1.gtei.net>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
| It may not exist in the CLOS vocabulary, but it certainly exists in the
| OOP vocabulary.

  well, what is this purported single OOP vocabulary?  is it a denial of
  the fact that certain terms have meaning only in the context of specific
  languages?  does it make any more sense to talk about "virtual methods"
  in CLOS than it does to talk about "generic functions" in C++ just
  because there's multiple inheritance from "the C++ vocabulary" and "the
  CLOS vocabulary" into "the OOP vocabulary"?

| And in that context, all CLOS methods are virtual -- they dispatch on the
| dynamic type of the object, rather than the static type of a variable
| declaration.  Since CLOS doesn't provide non-virtual methods, it doesn't
| need a syntactic way to indicate which are virtual and non-virtual, as
| C++ does.

  great.  I'm sure you made him feel better for having been consoled and
  told "you're not completely wrong", and now he'll continue to talk about
  virtual functions in CLOS forever, instead of having the potential of
  being rewarded for getting it right some time in the future.  just great.

#:Erik