One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to send data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that do the same thing -- they just accept different variable types.
Ultimately, I'd like my API to be serial.send(var); but I have to have : serial.sendAsInt(int); serial.sendAsObject(object); serial.sendAsArray(array); serial.sendAsString(string); serial.sendAsByteArray(ba); serial.sendAsByte(int); serial.sendAsFloat(float); .... .... This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that, but it seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better code-reuse, etc. -Nick On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <akess...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name. > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I > and the number 47 > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <rol...@stackandheap.com > >wrote: > > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is probably > > one of the most difficult features to implement) > > > > +1 for lamba expressions > > > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.d...@c-ware.de < > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > > > > > +1 for method overloading from me too > > > > > > And: > > > > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16 > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org > > > Betreff: Re: Language features > > > > > > Nick, +1 or even 10 > > > > > > -Fred > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Language features > > > > > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the > things I > > > miss from Java... > > > > > > -Nick > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <akess...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I think > > > > that's a code smell personally. > > > > > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS < > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Gordon, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should > be > > > > easy > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would be > > > > > welcomed > > > > > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes that > > > > > contain > > > > > static members only. > > > > > > > > > > And I voting +1 for the rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of > people > > > > > who > > > > > wait for a long time for these features. > > > > > > > > > > -Fred > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- From: Gordon Smith > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > Subject: RE: Language features > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon should > be > > > > easy. > > > > > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably harder > > but > > > > > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth > > > > considering > > > > > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String for > a > > > > > function that takes two ints and returns a String) and > strongly-typed > > > > fixed > > > > > arrays (i.e., int[]). > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, we > > can't > > > > > move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't recommend making > > any > > > > > modifications to the old compiler. > > > > > > > > > > - Gordon > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.**com< > > > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > > > > > ] > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Re: Language features > > > > > > > > > > +1 Nick > > > > > > > > > > May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the > > > > > possibility to have the constructor accepting other NS than public > to > > > > > simulate abstract classes and seen 2 places where it was checked > but > > > > didn't > > > > > dare to change it besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope someone > > > > better > > > > > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here ? > > > > > > > > > > -Fred > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > > From: Nick Collins > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Language features > > > > > > > > > > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at adding > > > some > > > > > additional language features to our compiler? > > > > > > > > > > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such as > > > > > abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems to me > > > that > > > > at > > > > > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler? > > > > > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > regards, > > Roland > > > > -- > > Roland Zwaga > > Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA > > > > +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | rol...@stackandheap.com | > > http://www.stackandheap.com > > > > http://zwaga.blogspot.com > > http://www.springactionscript.org > > http://www.as3commons.org > > >
