Re: The pulse of the Nation (Was: Please vote for Syntax check in /FREE!)

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve Richter wrote:
> ...
> in the first version, the explicit return type is only needed if the
> operator+ is ambiguous. ( and if the procs are only overloaded on primitive
> return types like char and bin. in practice, one proc may return a string,
> others would return different data structures. In such a case, operator+ is
> not ambiguous. )
> ...

You're still missing the issue that some expression that's 
unambiguous in one release may well be ambiguous in the next, given 
certain possible enhancements. For that reason alone, return value 
types should not be part of the parameter signature. That is, on 
moving a program from one release to the next, you shouldn't have to 
add any type coercions.


> Anyway, I am thinking that the need for procedure overloading may just be a
> placeholder for the need for namespaces.  Where two procs, in two different
> include files, are allowed to have the same name because their arguments are
> different.  In such a case, namespaces would be a better way to allow the
> procs to have the same name:
>
> Using overloading to distinguish two procs:
>      PrintOrder( PurchaseOrder_DataStruct ) ;
>      PrintOrder( CustOrder_DataStruct ) ;
>
> Better to use namespaces:
>      purchasing::PrintOrder( arg1 ) ;
>      customer::PrintOrder( arg1 ) ;

Well, namespaces is another totally unrelated issue. And frankly, 
I'm surprised that more RPG programmers don't seem to think that's 
an issue.

Cheers! Hans