I love having overloaded functions. It's nice to have the same function name and usage but with different data types passed. However ECMAScript does not allow for it.
-Mark -----Original Message----- From: Avi Kessner [mailto:akess...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 6:14 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: Language features If you have a bunch of if statements, then that means you are doing something significant and need multiple functions. And it would be good for those using the code to know what it's doing. If however it's just casting the var and sending it off, then you don't really need a bunch of if statements. Personally, I have been confused by overloaded functions more than once, (reading the wrong api documentation, or trying to pass in the wrong var types) and I don't think I've ever thought "Wow! I'm so glad they overloaded this function!" It seems to me that it exists in other languages for historical reasons and not for theoretical reasons like generics. brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47 On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Nick Collins <ndcoll...@gmail.com> wrote: > This would also mean having to put in a bunch of if...else statements or a > switch statement to check the type of var and call the appropriate method. > To me that is code smell much bigger than method overloading :) > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@spoon.as > >wrote: > > > One quick example -- in my ArduinoANE (an AIR ANE that allows you to send > > data over a serial port), I have to have at least 5 functions that do the > > same thing -- they just accept different variable types. > > > > Ultimately, I'd like my API to be > > > > serial.send(var); > > > > but I have to have : > > > > serial.sendAsInt(int); > > serial.sendAsObject(object); > > serial.sendAsArray(array); > > serial.sendAsString(string); > > serial.sendAsByteArray(ba); > > serial.sendAsByte(int); > > serial.sendAsFloat(float); > > .... > > .... > > > > This means that the end-developer needs to know all these different > > function names instead of one. Sure, a good IDE helps with that, but it > > seems unnecessary. It also prevents me from allowing better code-reuse, > > etc. > > > > -Nick > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Avi Kessner <akess...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I can not for the life of me understand the desire for overloading > > > functions. If it has different behavior give it a different name. > > > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I > > > and the number 47 > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Roland Zwaga <rol...@stackandheap.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > +100.000 for generics (although I fully understand that this is > > probably > > > > one of the most difficult features to implement) > > > > > > > > +1 for lamba expressions > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2013 12:48, christofer.d...@c-ware.de < > > > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 for method overloading from me too > > > > > > > > > > And: > > > > > > > > > > +1 for private/protected constructors :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > > > Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] > > > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2013 05:16 > > > > > An: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > Betreff: Re: Language features > > > > > > > > > > Nick, +1 or even 10 > > > > > > > > > > -Fred > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > > From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski > > > > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:58 PM > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Re: Language features > > > > > > > > > > I'd be fairly excited to see method overloading. It's one of the > > > things I > > > > > miss from Java... > > > > > > > > > > -Nick > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Avi Kessner <akess...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If it was up to me, I would vote against method overloading. I > > think > > > > > > that's a code smell personally. > > > > > > > > > > > > brought to you by the letters A, V, and I and the number 47 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Frédéric THOMAS < > > > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Gordon, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon > > should > > > be > > > > > > easy > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good news, at this point protected constructor would > be > > > > > > > welcomed > > > > > > > as well as private constructors are commonly used in classes > that > > > > > > > contain > > > > > > > static members only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I voting +1 for the rest :-) you gonna make happy a lot of > > > people > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > wait for a long time for these features. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- From: Gordon Smith > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:38 PM > > > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Language features > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adding abstract classes and private constructors to Falcon > should > > > be > > > > > > easy. > > > > > > > Adding generics and method overloading would be considerably > > harder > > > > but > > > > > > > probably doable after a lot of design. Two other features worth > > > > > > considering > > > > > > > are strong function types (i.e., a type like (int, int):String > > for > > > a > > > > > > > function that takes two ints and returns a String) and > > > strongly-typed > > > > > > fixed > > > > > > > arrays (i.e., int[]). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to continue to focus on MXML. Until it is finished, > we > > > > can't > > > > > > > move from the old compiler to the new one. I don't recommend > > making > > > > any > > > > > > > modifications to the old compiler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Gordon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoublefx@hotmail.**com< > > > > > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > > > > > > > ] > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:07 AM > > > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Language features > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > May be possible, I don't know, time ago, I looked at adding the > > > > > > > possibility to have the constructor accepting other NS than > > public > > > to > > > > > > > simulate abstract classes and seen 2 places where it was > checked > > > but > > > > > > didn't > > > > > > > dare to change it besause I didn't know the impacts, I hope > > someone > > > > > > better > > > > > > > than me here can take care of it, compiler geeks, are you here > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > > > > From: Nick Collins > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:24 AM > > > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > > > Subject: Language features > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the cancellation of AVM next, should we perhaps look at > > adding > > > > > some > > > > > > > additional language features to our compiler? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I think about some of the features I would like to see, such > > as > > > > > > > abstract classes, generics, method overloading, etc. it seems > to > > me > > > > > that > > > > > > at > > > > > > > least some of them could be implemented into our compiler? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > regards, > > > > Roland > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Roland Zwaga > > > > Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA > > > > > > > > +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | rol...@stackandheap.com | > > > > http://www.stackandheap.com > > > > > > > > http://zwaga.blogspot.com > > > > http://www.springactionscript.org > > > > http://www.as3commons.org > > > > > > > > > >
