Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ named requirements as concepts
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 04:28:49 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <86jzew3tla.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vcn7kn$1n3bh$2@dont-email.me> <vcummg$38kuj$1@dont-email.me> <vd0fau$3jvte$1@dont-email.me> <vd0hbi$3k8si$1@dont-email.me> <20240925131144.00004c38@yahoo.com> <vd0tc7$3m0aj$1@dont-email.me> <20240925151723.00006aa3@yahoo.com> <vd10sb$3me2n$1@dont-email.me> <vd1187$3mhqh$1@dont-email.me> <vd11vi$3mk4r$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vd12ua$3mpem$1@dont-email.me> <vd1359$3mpui$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vd13k7$3mskc$1@dont-email.me> <vd143e$3mu8h$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vd15mv$3n6uq$1@dont-email.me> <vd15rt$3n74v$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vd1adq$3nttp$1@dont-email.me> <vd1age$3nto7$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vd1bdr$3o32e$1@dont-email.me> <86h6a15tuv.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vd63t7$n6kc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 13:28:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f5b490802ead3c9705b43cb022c8c76"; logging-data="1286855"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+g4q08K8Q8zQePXHHvJqkwl9f4/tI29Sc="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/bZ2SfzsAoc0mFtv/P8RujIOpnM= sha1:ULy/F2f2C1lwquA/UQ8hI5jlF3k=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:120432

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 02:27:52 -0700
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> boringly babbled:
>
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>
>>> Thanks for proving my point.  A proper functional language has value
>>> polymorphism (which clearly you don't understand) as well as type
>>> polymorphism.
>>>
>>> https://chrisdone.com/posts/value-polymorphism/
>>
>> Neither "value polymorphism" nor "polymorphism by value" is a
>> common term.
>
> Because not many languages support it.
>
>> They mean different things.
>
> Not in the version of english I speak they don't.
>
>> Polymorphism by value was discussed in a 1993 paper by Xavier
>> Leroy.
>
> Who?
>
>> Value polymorphism, as it is described in the cited web page, is
>> simply overloading of variables rather than functions.
>> (Overloading is often called "ad hoc polymorphism".)
>
> Thats his opinion.
>
>> Neither overloading of functions nor overloading of variables has
>> anything to do with functional programming.  Overloading might be
>
> Without it many of the standard examples of functional programming simply
> won't run.
>
>> that don't have facilities for polymorphism, as for example the
>> original Lisp.
>
> Since when was Lisp a functional language?  Scheme maybe.

Judging by these responses, it seems you have no real interest in
having a useful conversation.