Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
>
>
>>I'm again a bit confused. Basically, what I want to do, is to be
>>able to define a single "function" name, reused (ie: "redefined")
>>for various combinations of arguments such that I can:
>>
>>(draw conclusion)
>>(draw bank-account)
>>(draw shape)
>
>
> A misconception.
>
> All the methods of the same generic function must implement the same
> generic function, only for different type of arguments.
>
>
> Drawing a conclusion, drawing a bank account and drawing a shape are
> three totally different concepts, three different functions and should
> be named differently. At least, they cannot be methods to the same
> generic function.
For a newby, let's make clear that the language itself does not prevent
this. Rather, the functionality itself will soon enough force the GF
signatures to deviate, so yes, this probably idly chosen trio /should
not/ be given the same names.
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950