Posted by Tony Marston on 08/11/06 13:39

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4cqdnd7ZEKvzREbZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:JqqdnZopOJbhTUTZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:2L6dnVvcUY7DukTZnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:MbydnaBugoftvUrZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>Can you point to to any papers on the internet which say that such a
>>>>>>practice is a good thing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That wasn't what I said. I said use the same function name - including
>>>>>case - in different functions. In language such as C++ and Java you
>>>>>could have any number of functions called "readFile". But I'm sure
>>>>>your poor brain would blow at such an idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just because you *could* have many different functions with the same
>>>>name does not mean that you *should*. Most people would find that
>>>>confusing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, it's required for one of the mainstays of OO programming -
>>>polymorphism - in every OO language.
>>
>>
>> Having the same method available in different classes, especially when
>> provided via subclassing, is not the same as having a single method name
>> with the same spelling but different case mean different things. There is
>> a diference between the two cases.
>>
>
> Yep. But it must really blow your mind away. I mean - two or three
> functions with the same name? How obfusticating! ROFLMAO!
>
>>
>>>And even without polymorphism requirements, it works quite well. Only
>>>stoopid Tony would find it confusing. Most people find it more confusing
>>>to have things like:
>>>
>>> printInt
>>> printString
>>> printDouble
>>> printEmployee
>>>
>>>etc. They find it much clearer to have one function name "print".
>>
>>
>> A single function called print() is not the same as a series of different
>> functions, which you advocate, called print(), prinT(), priNt() and
>> prInt()
>>
>> There is nothing obscure about a function with the same spelling meaning
>> the same thing regardless of case. But when a slight change in case is
>> used to produce a tonally different function? Now *that* leads to
>> obfuscated and unmaintainable code.
>>
>
> I never advocated print(), prinT(), priNt() and prInt(). YOU are the only
> one who has ever mentioned it.

Wrong! YOU are the only one who as ever advcated that the ability to do this
is a good thing. I have constantly been arguing that it is a bad thing, and
YOU keep shooting me down. Please make your mind up. If you think that it is
a bad idea then why are you arguing?

> But you're too stoopid to even understand what you wrote vs. what someone
> else wrote.

I know what I wrote, and I know what you wrote. I am AGAINST case sensitive
software where functions such as print(), prinT(), priNt() and prInt() are
*different* functions, and you are IN FAVOUR of case sensitive software.
This means that you are IN FAVOUR of software where functions such as
print(), prinT(), priNt() and prInt() are *different* functions.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

[Back to original message]