def do_something(a as Array)
puts "first array method"
puts a.inspect
end
def do_something(a as Hash)
puts "Second hash method"
puts a.inspect
end
def do_something(a)
puts "third method anything else"
puts a.inspect
end
a = ["something", "something esle"]
b = {"key1" => "something", "key2" => "something else"}
c = 1
d = 'c'
do_something(a)
do_something(b)
do_something(c)
do_something(d)
# what's the problem here (A)?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
def do_something(a as Array)
puts "first array method"
puts a.inspect
end
This is not valid Ruby. Is your problem that you're getting a syntax
error? Are you giving faux-Ruby to demonstrate what you want? See below.
# what's the problem here (A)?
Ruby is dynamically typed and there is no method overloading. Only the
method name distinguishes it from other methods, and you can't specify the
type of an argument in the way you're suggesting. You can fake method
overloading, by calling other methods:
def foo(x)
foo_for_array(x) if x.is_a? Array
foo_for_hash(x) if x.is_a? Hash
end
private
def foo_for_array(x)
p "foo for array"
p x.inspect
end
def foo_for_hash(x)
p "foo for hash"
p x.inspect
end
But don't do this. You'd be working against the language, instead of with
it, and you'd find yourself with more problems later down the line.
Instead of thinking of object types, follow duck typing[1] and think about
what an object is able to do, instead of what it is — whether an object is
able to respond to a certain method call. In your particular case, it makes
no difference what the argument's class is, because they all respond to
#inspect:
def do_something(arg_of_any_class)
puts arg_of_any_class.inspect
end
There's no need to try and restrict the type of arg_of_any_class.
[1] Duck typing: Duck typing - Wikipedia
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 12:52 PM, jack jones <shehio_22@hotmail.com> wrote:
Having multiple methods with the same name and choose one based on the
argument's class is not possible in Ruby.
You cannot even have multiple methods with the same name and different
number of arguments.
Let experts confirm.
Alexey.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Yes, Hans Mackowiak is right, the case operator is more complicated than
i thought.
How would you case a class in this case?
klass = a.class
case klass
when ???
...
Alexey.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Method overloading is not supported in Ruby.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 08:52:48PM +0900, jack jones wrote:
def do_something(a as Array)
puts "first array method"
puts a.inspect
enddef do_something(a as Hash)
puts "Second hash method"
puts a.inspect
enddef do_something(a)
puts "third method anything else"
puts a.inspect
enda = ["something", "something esle"]
b = {"key1" => "something", "key2" => "something else"}
c = 1
d = 'c'do_something(a)
do_something(b)
do_something(c)
do_something(d)# what's the problem here (A)?
--
Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce@gmail.com>
http://mcpierce.multiply.com/
"What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
Slight mistake. I should have instead said: you can fake the type aspect of
the method overloading you're expecting. As Alexey pointed out, even the
arity isn't taken into consideration, and only the name counts.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Adam Prescott <adam@aprescott.com> wrote:
You can fake method overloading, by calling other methods
Not as inbuilt language feature, anyway.
But with OO design, you can fake it, and dispatch method calls
semi-transparently*.
I'll leave the implementation of this Abomination of All That's Object
Oriented to the reader, though.
*"semi-transparent" since any implementation of such a thing _will_
blow up in your face, with hilarious results thanks to the lack of
static typing.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Alexey Muranov <muranov@math.univ-toulouse.fr> wrote:
Having multiple methods with the same name and choose one based on the
argument's class is not possible in Ruby.
--
Phillip Gawlowski
phgaw.posterous.com | twitter.com/phgaw | gplus.to/phgaw
A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
-- Leibniz
Alexey Muranov wrote in post #1018634:
P.S. Inside the method you can do
case a.class
when Array
...
when Hash
...
else
...
end
you are wrong
it must be
case a
when Array
...
when Hash
...
else
...
end
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Yes, Hans Mackowiak is right, the case operator is more complicated than
i thought.
How would you case a class in this case?klass = a.class
case klass
when ???
...
A generic solution is
def do_something(*args)
case args.map(&:class)
when [String, String]
puts "Working on two Strings"
when [Integer, String], [Fixnum, String], [Bignum, String]
puts "Working on int and String"
else
raise TypeError, "Dunno what to do with %p" % [args]
end
end
As you can see this soon becomes unwieldy. Which brings us back to
> it must be
... never done.
Kind regards
robert
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Alexey Muranov <muranov@math.univ-toulouse.fr> wrote:
--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
Alexey Muranov wrote in post #1018634:
P.S. Inside the method you can do
case a.class
when Array
...
when Hash
...
else
...
endyou are wrong
You are both wrong.
it must be
... never done.
That's the right way dealing with operator overloading. 
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Hans Mackowiak <hanmac@gmx.de> wrote:
--
Phillip Gawlowski
phgaw.posterous.com | twitter.com/phgaw | gplus.to/phgaw
A method of solution is perfect if we can forsee from the start,
and even prove, that following that method we shall attain our aim.
-- Leibniz
