On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 14:01 -0500, "Andrés G. Aragoneses" wrote: > Abderrahim Kitouni escribió: > > 2009/11/30 "Andrés G. Aragoneses" <kno...@gmail.com>: > >> Replying to myself: > >> > >> Andrés G. Aragoneses escribió: > >>> Hello. I'm wondering if the difference between Vala and C# wrt > >>> method/ctor overloading is intentional or is its real support > planned in > > It's intentional, one of the main goals of vala is to have libraries > > that can be used from C. So methods must have sensible names (i.e. > > name mangling is not an option) > > > > btw, Vala has named creation methods (a.k.a. named constructors) so > > there is no need for overloading (Yes, it would be useful but not > > necessary) > > Useful but not necessary, I agree. So this is why, if I were to help > providing a patch for this, I would make ctor overloading an option, not > dropping support for named constructors. Would that be acceptable?
Thanks for offering to work on this, however, I'd like to avoid method/constructor overloading at the moment. In addition to various potential issues with overloading¹ Vala is currently in a stabilization period. No fundamental semantic change as in your proposal will enter master in the near future. Jürg ¹ e.g., confusing effects on differing implementations of overloaded methods and complex method resolution as the combination of default arguments and method overloading can lead to conflicts, the mentioned issue of mapping to C identifiers _______________________________________________ Vala-list mailing list Vala-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
