Yes... I also would that explicit qualification would be a very good thing.
(I also wish Julia also had explicit exception handling, a la CLU... exceptions in CLU didn't cost more than a normal return because of that rule, and it really helped when trying to figure out a clusters correctness) Scott On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 9:46:00 AM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:51 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I would have thought stopping intentional behaviour is non-Julian, but >> accidental errors should indeed be limited. Perhaps adding methods to >> other modules functions needs to explicit. > > > I think that John Myles White was the first to start advocating for using > explicit qualification every time you extend methods from Base or some > other module than then one you're currently in. At first this felt a little > annoying to me, but I've grown to like it and I do think this may be a > good, low-tech solution. Forcing the programmer to be aware of the fact > that they're extending someone else's generic function already helps a lot. > If we provided some tooling for finding cases where people are monkey > patching and made it widely available, then that might really solve the > whole issue. >
