On 2021-01-05, Martin Gregorie  wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 20:20:27 +0000, gareth evans wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2021 20:12, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-01-05, Martin Gregorie  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:30:06 +0000, gareth evans wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That it warrants such an involved explanation is very good reason why
>>>>> such techniques should be avoided today!  :-)
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>> That sort of thing is so much easier in Java or Algol 68, which both
>>>> recognise that methods/procedures with the same name but different
>>>> parameter lists are indeed different pieces of code rather than a
>>>> stupid mistake.
>>>
>>> I avoid that technique - it invites other stupid mistakes.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Why any coder would want a procname with different calling lists is
>> beyond me.
>>
>> To object to having x_procname and y_procname etc suggests a coder is
>> not focussed on the matter in hand but is religiously adhering to some
>> irrelevant convention.
>
> Its very useful indeed in Java: its often helpful to use the same name
> with different parameter lists for constructors and also for methods that
> all do similar jobs, e.g for outputting values from a class its helpful
> to use the same method name,  with different parameter lists say:
>
> getValue(String caption, int value);
> getValue(String caption, double value);
> getValue(String caption, boolean value);

I find it easier to just cast "value" to a consistent type.
But then, I'm a hidebound C weenie...

--
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  "Some of you may die,
\ /        |  but it's a sacrifice
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  I'm willing to make."
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05