From: dblack@...
Date: 2002-09-12T22:25:12+09:00
Subject: Re: not grasping the method overloading/multi-dispatch thing

Hi --

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Pit Capitain wrote:

> On 12 Sep 2002, at 21:14, dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote:
>
> > > As Matz pointed out overloading would be in the spirit of Ruby
> >
> > Right, but that's the part I don't get :-)  I'm picturing things like:
> >
> >   def meth(Integer n, String s)
> >   ...
> >   def meth(Float f, String s)
> >   ...
> >
> > and somewhere along the line I'm not clear on how that fits into the
> > spirit/design/philosophy of Ruby.
>
> David, as I understand it, of course you would still be able to do
>
>   def meth(f, s)
>
> which would be equivalent to
>
>   def meth(Object f, Object s)
>
> Only if you wanted to have a different behaviour dependend on the
> types of the arguments you would do something like
>
>   def meth(Integer n, s)
>   def meth(Float f, s)
>
> So it really would be an addon to current Ruby, not breaking any
> existing code.

True, it wouldn't break code, but it would (for me) completely change
the "feel" of Ruby.  Also, I think we'd start to see very little of
this:

   def meth(n)

and lots and lots of this, even where it wasn't necessary:

   def meth(Integer n)

I think the availability of this kind of thing would deter many people
from exploring what is unique about Ruby.


David

-- 
David Alan Black                      | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net     | November 1-3
work: blackdav@shu.edu                | Seattle, WA, USA
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com