►zthomae’s SICP solutions
▼2 Chapter 2
2.1 Exercise 2.1
2.2 Exercise 2.2
2.3 Exercise 2.3
2.4 Exercise 2.4
2.5 Exercise 2.5
2.6 Exercise 2.6
2.7 Exercise 2.7
2.8 Exercise 2.8
2.9 Exercise 2.9
2.10 Exercise 2.10
2.11 Exercise 2.11
2.12 Exercise 2.12
2.13 Exercise 2.13
2.14 Exercise 2.14
2.15 Exercise 2.15
2.16 Exercise 2.16
2.17 Exercise 2.17
2.18 Exercise 2.18
2.19 Exercise 2.19
2.20 Exercise 2.20
2.21 Exercise 2.21
2.22 Exercise 2.22
2.23 Exercise 2.23
2.24 Exercise 2.24
2.25 Exercise 2.25
2.26 Exercise 2.26
2.27 Exercise 2.27
2.28 Exercise 2.28
2.29 Exercise 2.29
2.30 Exercise 2.30
2.31 Exercise 2.31
2.32 Exercise 2.32
2.33 Exercise 2.33
2.34 Exercise 2.34
2.35 Exercise 2.35
2.36 Exercise 2.36
2.37 Exercise 2.37
2.38 Exercise 2.38
2.39 Exercise 2.39
2.40 Exercise 2.40
2.41 Exercise 2.41
2.42 Exercise 2.42
2.43 Exercise 2.43
2.44 Exercise 2.44
2.45 Exercise 2.45
2.46 Exercise 2.46
2.47 Exercise 2.47
2.48 Exercise 2.48
2.49 Exercise 2.49
2.50 Exercise 2.50
2.51 Exercise 2.51
2.52 Exercise 2.52
2.53 Exercise 2.53
2.54 Exercise 2.54
2.55 Exercise 2.55
2.56 Exercise 2.56
2.57 Exercise 2.57
2.58 Exercise 2.58
2.59 Exercise 2.59
2.60 Exercise 2.60
2.61 Exercise 2.61
2.62 Exercise 2.62
2.63 Exercise 2.63
2.64 Exercise 2.64
2.65 Exercise 2.65
2.66 Exercise 2.66
2.67 Exercise 2.67
2.68 Exercise 2.68
2.69 Exercise 2.69
2.70 Exercise 2.70
2.71 Exercise 2.71
2.72 Exercise 2.72
2.73 Exercise 2.73
2.74 Exercise 2.74
2.75 Exercise 2.75
2.76 Exercise 2.76
2.77 Exercise 2.77
2.78 Exercise 2.78
2.79 Exercise 2.79
2.80 Exercise 2.80
2.81 Exercise 2.81
2.82 Exercise 2.82
2.83 Exercise 2.83
2.84 Exercise 2.84
2.85 Exercise 2.85
2.86 Exercise 2.86
2.87 Exercise 2.87
2.88 Exercise 2.88
2.89 Exercise 2.89
2.90 Exercise 2.90
2.91 Exercise 2.91
2.92 Exercise 2.92
2.93 Exercise 2.93
2.94 Exercise 2.94
2.95 Exercise 2.95
2.96 Exercise 2.96
2.97 Exercise 2.97
    ← prev  up  next → 

2.76 Exercise 2.76

We’ve learned three strategies for constructing generic systems with multiple implementations.

The simplest thing we can do is to pool the implementations into a single scope, differentiating between them by procedure name. This is how we ended up with explicitly named real-part-rectangular and real-part-polar procedures. To make this work, we have to pair a type tag with the data to be able to use these operations, leaving us with rectangular? and polar? procedures that are called inside the generic operations, such as real-part, in order to dispatch to the correct methods.

Alternatively, we could put these procedures into a table instead of directly into the relevant scope, and access them via an operation and a type. For example, we could get the equivalent of the real-part-rectangular procedure by wrapping around the essential operation of

((get 'real-part 'rectangular) z)

where the call to get returns the procedure that is called on the complex number object. Adding a new operation to our system is easy, because we can create a new table and add implementations of the operation for our types without having to modify any of the other tables. However, adding new types forces us to modify all of the tables to expand our operations.

We can reverse this tradeoff by using "smarter" types that can dispatch messages on their own. In this "message passing" style, adding new types is easy, because they can be added independently. However, adding new operations requires us to modify all of our existing types.

This is an instance of the Expression Problem.

    ← prev  up  next →