Comments for DelphiTools.info

Comment on Meanwhile, in the DWScript SVN… by A. Bouchez

A. Bouchez — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:15:27 +0000

I was in need for sar (and true shr) in JavaScript CodeGen for coding CRC32 and SHA256 in DWS. Thanks for your fast and efficient support!
Some new features are very welcome to me: for instance, I use very often “array [TEnumeratedType] of” static arrays in my code.
So much improvements! Thanks!

Comment on What do you think of function overloads? by EMB

EMB — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:59:08 +0000

François said exactly what I think.

Comment on What do you think of function overloads? by Simon

Simon — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:34:12 +0000

+1 for directive required
-1 for without directive

I’ve just clicked the wrong one.

Comment on What do you think of function overloads? by dennis

dennis — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:19:57 +0000

@stefan: sure, but dws might use it for data types as well…

Comment on What do you think of function overloads? by Rudy Velthuis

Rudy Velthuis — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:35:52 +0000

I doubt it is possible without the explicit declaration. If a (non-method) function is declared in a different unit, it usually hides any identifiers declared “earlier”. Only with overload, they can exist side by side.

The same for methods: a method with the same name, but declared in a derivate class, will hide the method in the original class. Only with an explicit overload directive, they can co-exist in the same class.

The explicit directive is, IMO, also a lot clearer and beats what e.g. C++ users have to do to achieve the same (“using”).

Comment on What do you think of function overloads? by Stefan Glienke

Stefan Glienke — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 07:39:49 +0000

@dennis You know that as is only available for class types, right?

Comment on What do you think of function overloads? by François

François — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:16:49 +0000

Let’s see the choices:
- if you like option 1 (shouldn’t be allowed), you can live well with option 2 (like it is today) and never type overload. The compiler will yell at you if you reuse an existing name for a routine and you’ll have to rename your routine. Option 3 will be a nightmare for you…
- if you like option 2 (explicit directive, my choice), option 1 removes unnecessarily (see above) a feature that can be useful (if used right) and breaks compatibility with existing code (baaad). Option 3 breaks introduces (only for code typing laziness) ambiguity and unreadability even worse than the infamous “with”.
- if you like overloading so much that you choose option 3 (implicit), option 1 would prevent you from even doing it, while option 2 allows you to do it as much as you want provided you can do 10 extra keystrokes.

Bottom line: option2 is the only one that makes sense because it is a compromise that works more or less for everybody. CQFD!

Comment on What do you think of function overloads? by dennis

dennis — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:03:54 +0000

@Stefan
-> compiler error. if it’s not 100% clear which function should be used then throw an error.
give an example, I can’t think of any, could be solves with the “as” statement:

MyResult := MyFunc(bla,bla) as TMyResult;

Comment on What do you think of function overloads? by Simon J Stuart

Simon J Stuart — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:26:43 +0000

Overloads are an important part of Delphi…. so of course they’re often heavily abused.

I use overloads quite often, where an operation can support multiple Types (such as Method Types “of Object” and Method Types NOT “of Object”).

I think implicit overloading would be dangerous… as developers would end up inadvertantly overloading methods, and it would lead to quite a lot of confusion.

Comment on What do you think of function overloads? by Fabricio

Fabricio — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:25:54 +0000

Leave it that way. If you are overloading, you have to say that using the directive.