Re: How to define constructors for classes defined using define-simple-class

[S D <s dot mailinglists at gmail dot com>]

The following code 

(define-simple-class overloading-test ()
  ((test a :: <int>) :: <int>
        (test (this) a a))
  ((test a :: <int>
         b :: <int>) :: <int>
        (+ a b)))

gives me

class1.scm:4:2: call to 'test' has too many arguments (3; must be 2)

If I interchange the two test methods,

class1.scm:7:2: call to 'test' has too many arguments (3; must be 1)


On Mar 30, 2005 4:58 PM, Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> wrote:
> S D wrote:
> > Will this be addressed in the future?
> 
> I expect so.
> 
> > Or is there any technical
> > limitation in generating constructor byte code?
> 
> It's partly a design issue.  Any design will be a bit of a kludge:
> what's a "constructor"?  It's a special kind of beat: neither a
> normal instance method nor a static method.  I think having constructors
> in a language is a mistake - one should use factory methods instead.
> 
> What I think we'll do is define "constructors" as if they were methods
> with a special name - perhaps "new", and a few special rules.
> 
> Support for calling a super-constrcutor can be based on the existing
> invoke-special.
> 
> > Also, it doesn't seem
> > to be possible to overload a method with different sets of parameters
> > (I think the last definition definition is the one that is being
> > created).
> 
> That seems to work for me.  If it doesn't work for you, submit a test
> case - but please try the cvs verson of kawa first.
> --
>         --Per Bothner
> per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/
>