Re^2: Built-in Function Homonyms for Method Names Bad, Too?

Zoiks, Scooby! That scared me right back into avoiding homonym method names. At this point I've flip-flopped back, and I think I'll stay here on this side of caution. I'm changing 'em now while I'm still early in this project.

Thanks, all, even to those who told me to leave 'em as-is, but my paranoia probably would have given me too much tension anyway.

Comment on Re^2: Built-in Function Homonyms for Method Names Bad, Too?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Built-in Function Homonyms for Method Names Bad, Too? by macrobat (Beadle) on Jan 26, 2006 at 18:54 UTC
Remember, though, that polymorphism is one of the selling buzzwords of object-oriented programming: you can use the same method name on objects of a different class, and have it do different things. That's desired. (And yes, I know that "objects of a different class" and "builtins" don't equate, but in this case they overlap enough for the benefit to still hold.) Also, although this means you need to be a little more cautious in your module, remember that the whole point of creating a module is so that it will get re-used. A little burden up-front is (presumably) worth it in the long run. If a dupe of a built-in name makes the most sense to you, it will probably be easy to remember (and therefore easy to use) for your clients as well.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Built-in Function Homonyms for Method Names Bad, Too?
by macrobat (Beadle) on Jan 26, 2006 at 18:54 UTC

Also, although this means you need to be a little more cautious in your module, remember that the whole point of creating a module is so that it will get re-used. A little burden up-front is (presumably) worth it in the long run. If a dupe of a built-in name makes the most sense to you, it will probably be easy to remember (and therefore easy to use) for your clients as well.

[reply]