Sam Liddicott píše v Út 12. 01. 2010 v 16:04 +0000:
* 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. SamThat'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.
I think the official reason is actually "nobody has shown us it is worth the trouble". I second that.
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.
Well.. I didn't succeed with string templates as well and they made their way into Vala later on, even without my effort. Opinions change, so I see the possibility of overloading being supported in some distant future, whatever the form. Not that I need or support it.
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.
See? All the trouble and so little to gain.
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.
Fields with different type and function have different names. I don't see anything wrong with that. Try imaging overloaded variables. That would be SO wrong.
BTW, please use a mail client that supports message threads. :)Sorry - stinkin pocket outlook :-(
Ewww. Don't use that. You will die a horrible death.
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy