[MUD-Dev] Re: PDMud thread summary

Chris Gray cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA
Tue Oct 27 21:12:31 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998

[Alex Oren:]

 >}  >I think we should look into the object model first.
 >}  >Do we want single or multiple inheritance?  Static or dynamic binding?  Single
 >}  >or multiple dispatch?  Vtables or name-based?  Etc...

 >Static binding is when the destination of a function call is known at compile
 >time.  Dynamic binding is when the destination is only known at run-time.  In
 >C++, dynamic binding is accomplished using virtual methods and pointers or
 >references to objects.

Static versus dynamic binding of function calls as a programming language
feature I understand just fine. It was those words attached to a question
about an object model that confused me. The object model and the
programming language are strongly intertwined, but they *are* separate.
Anyway, I agree - having a way to attach function pointers (or whatever
you choose to call them) to objects is extremely useful.

 >Now, to multiple dispatch.  Multiple dispatch is what Scott Meyers (More
 >Effective C++) calls "Making functions virtual with respect to more than one
 >object".  C++ and Java do not support this paradigm directly but there are
 >ways to simulate it.

OK, definitely jargon then. So, like, er, the state of two objects
determines which function is called for something?

Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation. - me

Chris Gray     cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list