On 2011-07-18 18:10:47 +0200, Jonathan M Davis said:
Well, technically-speaking, that's not really polymorphism, since the choice
of function is decided at compile time (polymorphism would be dealing with
overridden functions than overloaded ones),
Right ... thought static overloading was considered a form of
polymorphism as well. Aanyway... :D
but I suppose that that's not really here nor there.
Right :)
In any case, no you can't overload nested functions. You've never been able
to, and you still can't do it. I don't know _why_ such a restriction exists,
but it does. Feel free to open up an enhancement request for it. I don't know
that it'll do much good, but maybe you'll luck out. Not knowing why the
restriction exists in the first place, I don't know what the chances are of
that restriction being removed. For all I know, it's an Walter's TODO list.
I see. Not really critical.
As I've been thinking about the problem I was working on, I guess
dynamic (i.e., "real") polymorphism is what I need anyway; I guess the
(only?) way to do that would be to have a method on the objects in
question. (Right...? There are no other dynamic dispatch mechanisms
that I'm forgetting, other than type-based switch statements?)
Thanks,
- M
--
Magnus Lie Hetland
http://hetland.org
