On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 15:01 +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote: > * Jürg Billeter wrote, On 02/07/08 14:19: > > > > There are many cases where method overloading makes code harder to read, > > as each method can do something completely different, and you have to > > look carefully at each argument type to recognize what exact method will > > be called. This is especially bad if the overloaded methods also use > > default arguments. > > > > There are certainly also legitimate use cases of method overloading, > > however, adding an additional word to the method name is seldom a > > problem and usually makes the code more, not less, readable. I consider > > code readability a very important aspect. > > > > (I realise that you may not want to draw out this discussion, that's OK) > > One of my problems is trying to think of different names for a set of > functions which essentially do the same thing but with different > arguments types
If there are no semantic differences that you can put in some words, you can append something as simple as _with_int and _with_float. Not a lot of effort when writing, however, might improve code readability. > I agree that default arguments can make some if this need go away, and > sometimes too at the expense of readability, - trying to remember which > groups of arguments can be defaulted out together when calling and in > the method body trying to seperate out the default arguments to try to > work out what the caller was actually asking. If the logic in the body heavily depends on whether you use default expressions or not, this sounds like you should really split the function into simpler functions. Juerg _______________________________________________ Vala-list mailing list Vala-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
