Re: Type-free Circles and Ellipses [T]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:50:39 GMT, dmitry_at_elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) wrote:

>1. Is there some report available?

As I said in another message in this thread, the report describing the ANSA computational mode is still available here: <http://www.ansa.co.uk/ANSATech/94/Primary/100101.pdf>.

>2. The confusion between inheritance and your x-types, what it was. Do
>you mean that an x-type does not always inherit?

The model did not include inheritance. I think we were considered a bit odd in not believeing that inheritance was a universal panacaea that would solve all problems. It certainly seemed unimportant in modelling the interactions between objects.

>
>3. Were supertypes allowed?

We did not use that word, but there was no problem in writing down a type to which some other previously described type conformed. There was then no problem in using something of the old type in a context where something of the new type was required since the old type conformed to the new.

>
>4. Did you played with multiple dispatch on such a loose type
>structure?

The model was strictly classical. As far as I remember, those of us who worked on the theory considered that the generic function model (which was where we encountered multiple dispatch) did not have the characteristics of an object model that were most important to us in the context of distributed systems.

-- 
Owen Rees - opinions expressed here are mine; for the full disclaimer
visit <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html#disclaimer>