> Now, where did I put that draft white paper "99% of Overloading is > Bad"...?
I would agree to the above, i guess the runtime would have to do extensive checking for the method signature. Well Java does use overloading even in operators(+) i havent read the internals of how the RunTime keeps track of method signatures... This should be an interesting read. Joe Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Sean A Corfield > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 10:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [CFCDev] Overloading CFCs > > > On Monday, Aug 4, 2003, at 18:59 US/Pacific, JerryEla wrote: > > I would contend CFMX supports overloading, just in a very un-java way. > > Instead of defining multiple methods with different argument sets, > > you define a single method with optional arguments. > > That's not overloading. Overloading is *specifically* where you have > multiple methods with the same name and the language processor chooses > the best match to call. > > Now, where did I put that draft white paper "99% of Overloading is > Bad"...? > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > -- Margaret Atwood > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' > in the message of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported > by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
