Timeline for Is it a good idea to provide different function signatures that do the same thing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2018 at 15:22 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 14 characters in body |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 22:47 | comment | added | user40980 | @Nemo157 an interesting read - the first time I've seen the intended differences between the methods. | |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 22:40 | comment | added | Nemo157 | @MichaelT See briancarper.net/blog/98 or to_s vs to_str, it's not very well defined but they are intended to have different meanings. I do agree that Hash has too many ways of checking its keys though... | |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 14:32 | comment | added | user40980 | @Nemo157 to_s and to_string are two methods that do exactly the same thing with the same semantics. Why have two different names for them? Or in Hash, has_key? and include? and key? and member?... | |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 7:42 | comment | added | Nemo157 | @MichaelT to_s, to_str and inspect do actually have different semantics though, it just so happens that a subset of them are internally implemented as aliases for String and Array because they output the same thing for these classes. | |
| Jan 21, 2013 at 6:17 | comment | added | Xion | @ZacharyYates Lack of "constructor names" can be worked around by exposing a static construction methods instead. This is a standard practice in Java, although not so much in C++. | |
| Jan 17, 2013 at 18:54 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 5 characters in body |
| Jan 17, 2013 at 7:00 | comment | added | Manoj R | +1. You are dealing with developers/programmers. Microsoft idea of "user is monkey", does not work here. | |
| Jan 16, 2013 at 18:42 | comment | added | user40980 | "Having multiple function names that do the same thing..." - for a 'good' time, look at Ruby's classes String Hash Array File. | |
| Jan 16, 2013 at 18:15 | comment | added | Zachary Yates | In addition, you can't name constructors differently to explain your purpose, readers have to infer it from the parameters. Overloading the constructor this way makes it much harder to understand. | |
| Jan 16, 2013 at 18:09 | vote | accept | Trevor Hickey | ||
| Jan 16, 2013 at 18:09 | comment | added | Trevor Hickey | lots of up-votes. I will stop immediately. thank you. | |
| Jan 16, 2013 at 18:01 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 149 characters in body |
| Jan 16, 2013 at 17:55 | history | answered | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |