In response to a question about ad hoc overloading:
On Thursday, May 20, 1999 9:10 AM, Nigel Perry [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> So to answer the question: it can be done, by a simple existance proof :-)
>
Of course it *can* be done, but *should* it be done?
Uncontrolled overloading means that when you see a function application you can't
immediately see what function is being applied - you see its name but not its
semantics, because
there may be many different functions with the same name.
Obfuscating the program source in this way presents a risk of error, and is bad
language engineering.
What would be gained by allowing ad hoc overloading? If operations on different types
have similar meaning
there is a case for defining a new class. If you have existing different functions
with similar names you can
qualify them to avoid the ambiguity. When else would you want this feature?
--brian
Brian Boutel
Phone +64 4 9386709 Fax +64 4 9386710 Mobile 021 410142
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
