Frederik escribió:
> Andrés G. Aragoneses wrote:
>> Hello. I'm wondering if the difference between Vala and C# wrt
>> method/ctor overloading is intentional or is its real support planned in
>> the future? I ask this because I think it's a really important feature.
>> If not planned, I'd like to know if there would be interest in accepting
>> patched for it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andres
>>
>
> It's intentional. Keep in mind that compiled Vala class libraries are
> intended to be usable C class libraries as well. For example, function
> names like
>
> my_class_new
> my_class_new_with_foo
> my_class_new_from_bar
>
> are more self-explaining than
>
> my_class_new0
> my_class_new1
> my_class_new2
>
Makes sense.
But this problem is limited in scope: public methods of public classes.
So the approach I would propose would be less intrusive than just adding
method overloading that generate overkill names:
a) Make method overloading for non-public members be supported without
restrictions.
b) For public members, method overloading is supported but would
generate a warning if not decorated with an attribute like
[ExposeName("_with_foo")] (being with foo the suffix to add to the
function when exposing the function as a library).
How does that sound?
Thanks,
Andres
> I don't think that method/constructor overloading is an important
> feature. It adds no additional value for the programmer. The only
> drawback is that the programmer has to be more creative with respect to
> method/constructor naming. And with clear naming it's more obvious which
> method will be called than with method overloading.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Frederik
_______________________________________________
Vala-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
