Re: "Polymorphic" in OSL manual


Blair Zajac <bl...@...>
 

Reading these two

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_polymorphism
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Ad-hoc_polymorphism

suggests that what OSL provides is ad-hoc polymorphism, or otherwise known as overloading. I guessing adding "ad-hoc" or changing to "overloaded" would be fine, though I think the later is more familiar. I know if I saw "ad-hoc polymorphism" I would Google it.

Blair

On 02/01/2010 01:49 PM, Larry Gritz wrote:
RSL and OSL both are able to overload functions by return type.

So, do the terminology purists out there think that this makes it "polymorphic" or merely "overloaded"?

-- lg


On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Iliyan wrote:

I think one of the reasons for this extensive explanation was meant to
make the point that functions cannot be overloaded only by return
type, in contrast to RSL :) This, along with many other "restrictions"
of OSL, makes sense, I'd argue.

On Feb 1, 7:54 pm, Larry Gritz<l...@...> wrote:
I believe you are correct. Polymorphism should refer to types, what I was talking about is really "overloading."

-- lg
--
Larry Gritz
l...@...

Join osl-dev@lists.aswf.io to automatically receive all group messages.