


(Now) Any IDIOT can
(plainly) see that this formula is (trivial, and) selfexplanatory.




<pretend to
change slide>


Okay now wait a
minute.


I’ve always wondered
what it feels like to be a “theory guy” and get away with glib remarks like
that one.




Now let me be
precise for one in my life…




The formula above
gives the cardinality of the set of generated redispatching methods (bar D
bar) given a generic function with a set of specialized parameters S1 through
SN, the cardinality of each of which is indicated by bar S sub j bar.




I was encouraged to
typeset this by our distinguished / illustrious program chair (Andrew Black),
and frankly am quite delighted / thrilled with the result. However, the
formulation at the bottom may strike some as more accessible though. It may
seem to sum that the number of generated methods might, in general, be quite
large. In practice, both the number of specialized, polymorphic parameters,
and the number of alternatives (one might call them alleles) will be
relatively modest. Note that you can minimize the number of generated methods
by redispatching to them out of order, and bouncing off the parameters whose
sets of specializers have the smallest cardinalities first.




I’m often /
frequently asked, where did that factor of two in the last term on the bottom
come from. That is present because the final designation methods can be made
easier to read if you introduce on more dispatch to a presentation method in
which the parameters are listed in the original order, thereby perhaps not
exposing the “pinball bumper” methods to the user at all. This final ricochet
can be elided for efficiency too.




I thought about this
for a long time, and it does in fact unfailing describe the number of methods
we generate. I’ve never seen this published anywhere else (though that
doesn’t mean it hasn’t been published elsewere.) I’ll gladly pay the some of
ONE GUINEA (cashmoney) to the man or woman who can demonstrate that this
formula not correct.
