Re: [Vala] Support for method overloading.

["Sam Liddicott" <sam liddicott com>]

* Jiří Zárevúcky wrote, On 12/01/10 14:43:
> Sam Liddicott píše v Út 12. 01. 2010 v 07:25 +0000:
>   
> > Overloading could easily be supported with mandatory cname or csuffix attributes; that an explicit name needs 
> > to be given for C is no reason that it needs to be given for vala which could do regular overloading.
> >
> > I think it ought to be supported.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> >     
>
> That's a matter of opinion. If Vala supported it, people would start
> using cnames like "lib_class_some_action", "lib_class_some_action2",
> "lib_class_some_action3", etc. Overloading exists because people are
> lazy, ain't that true? :) Even if they wouldn't, it would still make
> things considerably messier IMO (I, for one, do like the way I can use
> most C libraries without separate Vala docs or searching VAPI).
>   
The point is that although the user needs to come up with alternative 
names, vala doesn't need to use them, and so the official reason for not 
supporting overloading is nonsense.

You present a new reason, that users who are idiots, will chose idiotic 
names. Such users may do this anyway...
> But anyway, if you really want it, you could just implement it and send
> it to Jürg for approval.
I've played that game before, and lost. There's no point in working on 
any feature if it is not in accordance with Jürg's vision for the language. 
>  Just think whether you really need it. From my
> POV, it's pointless.
>   

I have my own reasons for distrusting it, how will overloading work with 
automatic type promotions, maybe at one instant the int value passed as 
an argument gets upgraded to a long int, but later someone overloads for 
int - your code now has a different code path without you expecting it, 
lets hope the new code path works like the old one. Of course the user 
should make it like that, but automatic type promotion and overloading 
worry me.

But despite that, I find it useful. Who wants to keep repeating the type 
of an argument on the end of a function name? It's the last vestige of 
lpcszName type notation. Such information belongs in the computer and 
shown with nice markup.

> BTW, please use a mail client that supports message threads. :)
>   
Sorry - stinkin pocket outlook :-(

Sam