Re: Trouble understanding define (!)

[Neil Jerram <neil at ossau dot uklinux dot net>]

Marius Vollmer writes:

   Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

   > When working with a generic, whose name might be the same as that of
   > an imported generic, [...]

   I would stop right here.  What does it mean for a generic to have a
   name?  How is that different from a function having a name?  Or any
   other object?

Please note that in that post I was attempting to summarize what had
been discussed so far, not necessarily advocating a name-centric
treatment of generic functions.

As it happens, I agree with your points about not treating generics
specially, and I think that it is wrong to automatically merge methods
for generic functions that merely happen to have the same name in one
particular language.

Some of the things that you can "draw" (in English):

       - graphics
       - playing cards
       - curtains
       - water (from a well)
       - breath
       - strength
       - pistols
       - a carriage. 

On the other hand, the fact is that, in some cases, a "merging"
behaviour is desirable (whether for generics, numbers or lists), and
it makes sense to think about how we could support that.

And I think that, putting together the various ideas that have been
proposed, we're pretty close now to a complete solution.

Regards,

        Neil