--- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Both of your proposed options are, frankly, vile. The > multimethod/generic function approach has the advantage of putting > the > 'burden' of writing the generic function on the implementor rather > than on the user. Given that implementation happens once and > something > is used countless times, that seems like a decent trade off to me.
Dictionary.com sez: "vile adj. vil·er, vil·est 1. Loathsome; disgusting: vile language. 2. Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather. See Synonyms at offensive. 3. - a. Contemptibly low in worth or account; second-rate. - b. Of mean or low condition. 4. Miserably poor and degrading; wretched: a vile existence. 5. Morally depraved; ignoble or wicked: a vile conspiracy." Is this one of those BOFH things where you insult the hell out of someone and then give them a pat on the head, and six months later they're arrested while sneaking into the London Zoo wearing a leather corset and silk panties? (*) Otherwise, I'm left to wonder. As I read Mike's post, he's proposing that we regularize a feature of the language, make it extensible, and potentially use a conceptual framework based on an existing syntactical element. Yours, on the other hand, gives (I hope) the extensibility, doesn't require the syntactic bits but does appear to require that every such method be implemented twice. I'm going to need some more convincing. =Austin (*) Because if so, I'm all for it!
