Re: What is the purpose of static typing?
Re: What is the purpose of static typing?
- Subject: Re: What is the purpose of static typing?
- From: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:22:45 +0200
On Thursday, July 25, 2002, at 05:31 , email@hidden wrote:
The object can always use introspection to choose the right method though
Well, it *would* be possible, but it would mean that the call pattern
would have to be *extremely* dynamically compiled, and I am afraid that
not even G5 would offer muscle enough for *that*.
Theories apart, the fact is that GCC does not compile calling by such a
dynamic way -- and in near future absolutely won't. In farther future, who
knows? It would be very nice, but the efficiency penalty would be vast.
On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 08:36 PM, Ondra Cada wrote:
That said, static types are indeed almost superfluous from the
functionality point of view. The only situation when they can't be
replaced by ids without any problems are -- slightly incorrect, but
possible -- messages with same name, but different signatures, like
@interface Foo
-(int)blah;
@end
@interface Bar
-(double)blah;
@end
Now, [(Foo*)x blah] and [(Bar*)x blah] are compiled differently.
---
Ondra Cada
OCSoftware: email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz
private email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz/oc
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.