HaloO,
Buddha Buck wrote:
Is this right? (E,D,D) to (A,C,C) is (4,1,1), with a L1 metric of 6.
(E,D,D) to (D,A,A) is (1,3,3) with an L1 metric of 7. Are you sure
(E,D,D) would bind to (D,A,A)?
Oh, shit. I fail with the simplest of mathematics. Indeed
(E,D,D) binds to (D,A,A). The problem I w
Sorry, you're not following me at all. I'll try again later.
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
OK, why would someone create those forms in the first place?
I would think they grow like that historically. A five steps
long subtyping chain is not p
Sorry to reply to the wrong comment, but I lost the original thread in
my mail archives and didn't notice this until now.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, John M. Dlugosz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
>
> >
> > The fundamental flaw of metric mmd is th
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
OK, why would someone create those forms in the first place?
I would think they grow like that historically. A five steps
long subtyping chain is not particularly extraordinary. Note that
multi entries live outside of classes and their single dispatch.
The
sub
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
The fundamental flaw of metric mmd is that it trades degrees of
specificity. Consider the subtype chain E <: D <: C <: B <: A
where the rule is that having an E it is better handled by a
method dealing with a D than one dealing with an A. The same
