Morning, You started with an assumption, and ended by asserting that your assumption was true.
An implementation of overloading that somehow circumvents the obvious performance impact, and compatibility problems is not easily conceivable, at all. Cheers Joe On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Dominic Grostate < codekest...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I think this may have been discussed before, but I was largely dismissed > because no one though it would be possible to implement. > > However assuming it is possible, what is the general feeling towards > function overloading, as seen in C# and Java? > > To me, it saves me coming up with convoluted names for tackle various > parameter combinations, even though the function/methods themselves all do > the same thing, as well as saving having to omit type hinting in order to > manually type check within the function. > > The previous RFC on union types attempted to fulfill a similar operation, > but it failed to go through, but given the support it never the less had, > I'm hoping that overloading will be more acceptable. > > To give an idea of how I'd implement it, I'd first try by hashing the > function name with the type hints, plus the number of arguments, with > variadics and references also taken into account on top of handling of > dynamic arguments. > > The exact method is open to implementation, but it is possible to create an > order priority and conflict resolution to enable overloading, while > hopefully maintaining backwards compatibility with all existing > core/ext/user functions. > > Please give your thoughts, thanks, > Dominic >
