Re: Implicit overloads, non static

Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu <cpub@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <skeet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:MPG.1ce5f6ef1d5d5b1698c0ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> > Well, you've disputed whether it's a matter of implementation rather
> > than principle. The fact that you'd *like* to do something which to me
>
> I didnt necessarily want to do it - the code I posted was just to show
> "What" it would do. Im using the copy constructor behaviour and am just
> fine with that.

Well, you said you'd *like* to do it in your first post - I was going
on that.

> > I guess we can only talk about our own experiences, however different
> > they may be. The discrepancy does seem very odd though - I wonder what
> > the cause is.
>
> It's easy - 1 to 5, 0, to 4, goofing up of the condition mostly.

No, I mean I wonder what the cause of the discrepancy is - you seeing
it lots, and me seeing it very rarely.

> > Sure, that's clearer - but I wasn't disputing that. You said you prefer
> > your developers to use while loops, and I was saying that I find them
> > harder to read than for loops. Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes
> > though.
>
> Aah - sorry I should have clarified that. I prefer they use while loops
> *when* its not a simple for i = 1 to 5 condition. Certainly not for that
> condition. :)

Right, okay.

> > Only if you'd really find life hard without them. I don't find life
> > hard in Java where I don't have them, therefore they're not that
> > important to me.
>
> I find a lot of things hard in Java. Ack what they call properties... They
> are methods! There's no property about it - its a blooddy pattern I could
> do in VB... reminds me of OOP in SAS.

No-one's claiming it's anything more than a pattern in Java.

> > And for almost every use, I'd go along with that. Other than the types
> > defined in the language spec, I think it's pretty much always a bad
> > idea to have implicit conversion. Being able to provide *explicit*
> > conversion operators is not quite so bad, although it should still be
> > used with a lot of care.
>
> Here is where we will strongly disagree then for sure.

Making code self-explanatory is a big thing for me. Implicit
conversions can definitely be confusing - I've seen *that* lots on the
newsgroups. Again, it's something Java doesn't have and which I don't
miss when I go back to Java.

> > No, I think we're disagreeing more fundamentally. Your examples have
> > shown that you think it's not always a bad idea to violate the
> > principle that if I do:
> >
> ><variable> = <expression>;
> >
> > I should be able to look at <expression> and completely know the value
> > of the variable. That's not a matter of what's important or not, it's a
> > case of what violates entirely reasonable assumptions that pretty much
> > every developer makes subconciously all the time.
>
> But you *do* know the value. Becuase its a new value type.
>
> BCD x = 4;
>
> decimal i = x;
>
> i equals 4.
>
> It *is* a new value type - and thus its value is 4. There are many other
> non value type uses for implicits too.

I wasn't talking about implicit conversions in general - I'm talking
about the idea from your first post where you did:

MyStruct x;
x.SomethingElse = 5;
x = 4;

and you'd want the value of x *not* to be completely determined by the
RHS (which is just 4). You'd want it to be determined by both the RHS
and the previous value of x. That's counterintuitive.

That's what I was saying was a bad idea on principle, regardless of
implementation.

> > Right. I'm not sure I'd call that a copy constructor myself, but that's
> > not terribly important. (I usually wouldn't use the phrase "copy
> > constructor" outside C++, and then only when the parameter to the
> > constructor was of the same type as the object being constructed.)
>
> Yes - true. Its not a copy constructor, its similar behavioru. I introduced
> the term when I was describing some behaviour, and its gone out of context
> since then.

Sure. So long as I know what you mean, it doesn't really matter.

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@xxxxxxxxx>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Implicit overloads, non static
    ... you've disputed whether it's a matter of implementation rather ... > than principle. ... that's clearer - but I wasn't disputing that. ... I'm not sure I'd call that a copy constructor myself, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: 2 newbie questions
    ... > the volume of a fish tank and a third that ties everything together. ... You create a .java file. ... Then you modify this by asking it to create a constructor method and calling ... When you have a series of variables in some array, and you have an array for ...
    (comp.lang.java.help)
  • Re: New (as in days) to Java - question about "super()" method
    ... > Hi, I'm Don, and I'm a serious greenie when it comes to Java. ... learn Java because Object Oriented Programming is quite different from ... > guts out of the method involved (a constructor, I believe, is the ... inheritance: if I have a class and I want to add some extra ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Road to Clojure Survey
    ... constructor taking another Collection as a parameter, ... on Java collections require mutation) is not wrong in principle. ... Common Lisp either, for that matter, even if in general Common Lisp ... JDK 1.1 - that was before the Collection interfaces were defined. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: operator new with "value type"
    ... both C++ and Java that don't hold in C# ... ... construct to differentiate "create an auto variable" vs. "create and ... that such a term exists in C#) - it's a case of calling a constructor. ... an accent from another language - if you try to write C# as if it's C++ ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)