> From: "David Arno" <da...@davidarno.org> > To quote Bertrand Meyer > (http://drdobbs.com/184414874): > > "Overloading, the most masochistic device ever introduced, means that you > can give the same name to several methods as long as they differ by at least > one argument type. This is a rare example of a facility that has no known > advantage, and many documented problems (it's confusing, and conflicts with > object-oriented mechanisms such as polymorphism and redefinition)." > > I'm in full agreement with the above quote. I think it is good that AS3 > doesn't allow method overloading. Yet it is a popular request, so clearly > other folk disagree with this. I'm therefore curious to know why people are > requesting what ought - IMO - to be viewed as a bad thing. > > David.
David, I completely agree with you (and Bertrand Meyer). I seem to remember that a lot of writers on the subject of clean/efficient code say that overloading is basically an overly abused construct (a bit like the Singleton pattern) and that most cases where it is used, it should be replaced by different methods whose names are pretty clear on what they differ. Even with constructors, which is something most overloading advocates refer to, could be replaced by static factory methods with a clear naming strategy (createWithDistance, createWithDistanceAndSpeed, etc.). I've been able to live without overloading in AS for ages and even if that was possible I doubt I'd ever use it or allow it to be used in my team. But, as David and Jeffry said, I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone wanting to implement something around that. Maybe someone can come up with a clever system that eases the task of the developer while keeping the code expressiveness to the final user. Best, Rui
