What am I missing?

[David Requena]

Not that I advocate 'uses' use!

Coming from the java camp I'd rather having everything fully specified in mi code than saving some typing.
Steve McConnell's Code Complete 2 also went a long way into convincing me of such conveniences :-)


El 18/03/2010 15:34, Mike Cowlishaw escribió:

Yes, agree there are some problems (and Uses is a bit strange).  Hence the "Would need some thought." in my post... :-)

 

Mike

---

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Requena
Sent: 18 March 2010 11:31
To: IBM Netrexx
Subject: [Ibm-netrexx] Static functions (was What am I missing?)

El 27/02/2010 8:53, Mike Cowlishaw escribió:

Many people have said they miss linein/charin etc. -- there's a good
argument for making a RexxFile kind of object part of the 'standard
runtime'.  Or even re-introducing/permitting static functions perhaps, where
if the programmer writes:

  x=foo(bar, 2, 3)

this would be treated as:

  x=bar.foo(2, 3)

Would need some thought.
  

Mike,

Thinking a bit about this... wouldn't that very same thing
be accomplished by putting a 'uses Bar' construct in the
signature of any class calling foo(bar, 2, 3)?

'uses' keyword aside, I'm not sure how the so-called static
functions would be found by the language processor.

For starters there may exist many definitions of foo(byte, byte)
with no clear hint on precedence.

Another potential problem I see is: how would the language
processor determine which method to call when both foo(Bar, byte, byte)
and foo(byte, byte) static methods are defined at class Bar?

This stuff is a little mind twisting and I'm a bit dense
this morning but the 're-introducing' term in your note
suggests you already gave some thought to these matters.

Thanks for your thoughts!

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]

  

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]