It COULD be implemented without changing the runtime by using different
method names or namespaces.
However: to be "mathematically" safe that no mistakes happen they would
need to be named something like
send<reserved-character>String<reserved-character>org<other-reserved-character>myproject<other-reserved-character>MyType(a:String,
b:MyType);
If it was possible to use namespaces in interfaces in the avm then it
could be also implemented using namespaces (might result in a smaller swf).
However: there are fundamental problems with a non-runtime solution:
*) describeType would create different results with a swf that supports
overloading.
*) untyped access would not work properly anymore: var a:* = new
MyClass(); a["doSomething"]("str") would not work anymore like that
Either would potentially break libraries which is why I was hoping for
overloading support by the avm for a long time.
yours
Martin.
However: describeType is a runtime method that would unravel this hack.
On 17/01/2012 01:14, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote:
If it would be implemented like it is in Java (not to say that would be the
case), the runtime method names would be mangled so that they actually are
different . (send_ABSJD(), send_JNKFF(), for example) -- there wouldn't
be any impact during runtime. No different than how unnamed functions work
at the moment.
We would have to wait and see how the compiler handles this today to see
what and how it could be done.
-Nick
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Jonathan Campos<jonbcam...@gmail.com>wrote:
I would just want to see what the tradeoffs would be for the compiler and
code execution before I am really for/against this addition.
--
Jonathan Campos
