That won't work. That only works for statically declared matrix types, not run-time matrix types. To be usable, the suggested mechanism must work against runtime data-types.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Matthew Pocock <turingatemyhams...@gmail.com > wrote: > You may get more mileage by having a matrix operation interface that has is > parameterised over the two matrix types. It would have things like multiply > once and you would have different concrete implementations for different > pairs of matrix types. The implementations can even be provided via one of > the matrix classes to allow it to take advantage of the matrix internal > structure without exposing it. > > On 1 Jul 2011 22:49, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Double dispatch was the wrong term. I should have said double argument > polymorphism. Double dispatch is a sub-optimal answer to the problem of > double polymorphism. > > Apologies for polluting the discussion with a silly error. > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Greg Sterijevski <gsterijev...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > Ted, > > > > I am not sure why you think there will be double dispatch. If we remove > the > > multiplica... >
