"Craig Black" <cblack@ara.com> wrote in message news:b5o0du$iar$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Hey peoples,
>
> I would like to thank Mark Evans for his numerous contributions to this mailing list.
>
> Multi-methods are great!!
>
> Implementation can be done in a number of ways.
>
> O(1) complexity can be achieved by indexing types and storing an N-Dimensional lookup table of function pointers.
>
> If the memory footprint for the N-Dimensional table gets to be too large, then you could store the function pointers in a binary tree.
>
why not compile the binary tree into a set of cmps and jmps ?

> why not compile the binary tree into a set of cmps and jmps ?

Hmmm ..... sounds difficult to implement but a good idea!

Craig

I was just thinking, you could also use a hash table.

Craig

Craig Black wrote:
>>why not compile the binary tree into a set of cmps and jmps ?
> 
> Hmmm ..... sounds difficult to implement but a good idea!

Why not optimise out all of the cmps and jmps altogether then. ;>

-i.

There is no way to "optimize out" the logic in the binary tree.  It must exist in some form.  Somehow, the multi-method dispatcher is going to have to find the method that corresponds to the identity of the objects it is dealing with.  This can be done in a number of ways, none of which vaporize into thin air when you optimize them.

Craig

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub@8ung.at> wrote in message news:b726ev$1ea5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Craig Black wrote:
> >>why not compile the binary tree into a set of cmps and jmps ?
> >
> > Hmmm ..... sounds difficult to implement but a good idea!
>
> Why not optimise out all of the cmps and jmps altogether then. ;>
>
> -i.
>