From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 11:42:17
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> >> I don't view overloading for overloading's sake as improvement;
> >> there's nothing wrong with giving different names to different
> >> behaviors.
> > These functions do very nearly the same thing. That seems an
> > ideal case for overloading.
> This particular case is on the fence. One could think of the overloaded
> interface as a typesafe approximation of
> status_return_flags status( path const & p, status_option_flags flags =
> status_option_default );
> with follow_symlink being the only option flag at the moment.
OK. I'm missing your point, though.
> In general, though, excessive overloading should be avoided. My usual litmus
I agree wholeheartedly that "excessive overloading should be
avoided." I don't see this as excessive overloading.
> test for appropriate overloading is: can you tell what this does:
> f( x, y );
> without looking up the exact types of x and y.
You can never tell in C++. Is "f" a macro? What is the scope of
the call? "f" is hardly a telling name, so how can one determine
what f(x,y) does for any pair of arguments?
All of those questions aside, how does this apply to the case
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk