So its a 'hard' problem...In which case Isnt it A good incentive for differentiating RB from those competitors by incorporating the feature?. I think it would be a "nice to have, and since why not just face the "hard problems" head on.
I have had many cases where I have to rename methods that are basically polymorphic in use simply because one cannot overload based on return type. As Kennedy said "we choose to do the 'Hard Thing'...not the easy thing.." ;) On 22/8/06 19:05, "Mars Saxman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Jan Erik Moström wrote: > >> I suppose I should add this as a feature suggestion but before >> doing that, is it >> technically possible to add overloading/method identification based >> on the full >> signature in RB? > > It would probably be possible to modify the REALbasic language such > that overloading on return types would make sense, but it is not at > all likely that this will ever happen. There are some hard problems > involved, and it's not clear to me that the change would be a net > benefit. > > Neither Java, C++, C#, nor Visual Basic.NET, all of which support > overloading, include the return type as part of the method signature. > I suspect that the designers of those languages encountered similar > obstacles. > > Mars Saxman > REAL Software_______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: > <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> > > Search the archives of this list here: > <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html> > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
