flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Heidegger ...@leichtgewicht.at>
Subject Re: AS3 Enhancements: method overloading. Why do people want this?
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:41:55 GMT
It COULD be implemented without changing the runtime by using different 
method names or namespaces.
However: to be "mathematically" safe that no mistakes happen they would 
need to be named something like


If it was possible to use namespaces in interfaces in the avm then it 
could be also implemented using namespaces (might result in a smaller swf).

However: there are fundamental problems with a non-runtime solution:

*) describeType would create different results with a swf that supports 
*) untyped access would not work properly anymore: var a:* = new 
MyClass(); a["doSomething"]("str") would not work anymore like that

Either would potentially break libraries which is why I was hoping for 
overloading support by the avm for a long time.


However: describeType is a runtime method that would unravel this hack.

On 17/01/2012 01:14, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote:
> If it would be implemented like it is in Java (not to say that would be the
> case), the runtime method names would be mangled so that they actually are
> different .  (send_ABSJD(), send_JNKFF(), for example)  -- there wouldn't
> be any impact during runtime.  No different than how unnamed functions work
> at the moment.
> We would have to wait and see how the compiler handles this today to see
> what and how it could be done.
> -Nick
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Jonathan Campos<jonbcampos@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I would just want to see what the tradeoffs would be for the compiler and
>> code execution before I am really for/against this addition.
>> --
>> Jonathan Campos

View raw message