Skip to main content

Overloading vs Variable Arguments !!!

In a statically typed (object oriented?) language, function overloading offers the facility of organizing your code into two or more functions with different types and/or number of arguments. This is highly useful when the functionality offered by the function can be invoked in different scenarios. For instance, let us consider the function(s) below:

// C# code
Dictionary<string, object> CreateResponse(string msg) {
 return CreateResponse(ex.Message, 0, false);
}

Dictionary<string, object> CreateResponse(string msg, int code) {
 return CreateResponse(ex.Message, code, false);
}

Dictionary<string, object> CreateResponse(string msg, bool success) {
 return CreateResponse(ex.Message, 0, success);
}

Dictionary<string, object> CreateResponse(Exception ex) {
 return CreateResponse(ex.Message, ex.HResult, false);
}

Dictionary<string, object> CreateResponse(string msg, int code, bool success) {
 var errorInfo = new Dictionary<string, object>();
 errorInfo['message'] = msg;
 errorInfo['code'] = code;
 errorInfo['success'] = success;
 return errorInfo;
}

Not a great example but I guess it is enough to explain my point.

The CreateResponse function has different overloads yielding itself to be used without much noise depending on the situation. If you have to create a response from within a catch block, you could go for the overload that takes an Exception object as input. And all the different overloads use or share a single core implementation, the one that takes all the possible inputs for CreateResponse. One would also have seen the same thing when implementing a class with multiple constructors. This is a very common pattern, and personally, a very useful one because you can be pretty sure about the inputs and their types. Of course, type guarantee is an integral part of any statically typed language.

Dynamic languages (such as JavaScript or PHP), on the contrary, do not offer any type guarantee, and hence could not possibly offer overloading, at least based on the types of arguments. They could, theoretically, offer overloading based on number of arguments. However, they don't, and for a good reason. Unlike statically typed languages, dynamic languages don't take the number of arguments for a function seriously. What that means is, in JavaScript or PHP, one could call a three arguments function without any arguments or less than or even more than three arguments. It is up to the implementation to deal with whatever arguments have been passed, including situations when one or more arguments have not been passed.

With the variable arguments, one could more or less simulate overloading but the implementation would be relatively messy or not natural unlike in statically typed languages. There would be a ceremony around argument checking - number and types of arguments, before they can be reliably used. It takes a quite an effort to make the function fail safe, execution wise. If the function expects an integer, it could not possibly work with a parameter that is an array. If this is all too much to worry about, one could just ignore implementing the guarantee, call it an assumption or ground rule, and and let the function fail; which is how code is typically written.

The other drawback around variable arguments, in the context of simulating overloading, is that it could end up not extensible; for instance to support future types and/or arguments. For instance, the type deduction at a particular argument index may not be possible any more if more arguments have been to be supported or even for the same number of arguments but with different types.

Actually my original musings was something else, besides compare/contrast overloading and variable arguments. It was about how the dynamic language runtime could, with my layman knowledge or as a consumer, handle type guarantee and so forth. I like to reserve a separate post, hopefully the next, to discuss about it.

Until then, I am going to let you try implementing CreateResponse in a dynamic language, say JavaScript, and enjoy the difficulty!
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Passing CComPtr By Value !!!

This is about a killer bug identified by our chief software engineer in our software. What was devised for ease of use and write smart code ended up in this killer defect due to improper perception. Ok, let us go!CComPtr is a template class in ATL designed to wrap the discrete functionality of COM object management - AddRef and Release. Technically it is a smart pointer for a COM object.void SomeMethod() { CComPtr siPtr; HRESULT hr = siPtr.CoCreateInstance(CLSID_SomeComponent); siPtr->MethodOne(20, L"Hello"); }Without CComPtr, the code wouldn't be as elegant as above. The code would be spilled with AddRef and Release. Besides, writing code to Release after use under any circumstance is either hard or ugly. CComPtr automatically takes care of releasing in its destructor just like std::auto_ptr. As a C++ programmer, we must be able to appreciate the inevitability of the destructor and its immense use in writing smart code. However there is a difference between …

out, ref and InvokeMember !!!

When I was working on the .NET reflection extravaganza thing that I explained in my previous column, i learnt one another interesting thing, that is about the Type.InvokeMember. How will pass out or ref parameters for the method invoked using Type.InvokeMember ? If you are going to invoke a method with the prototypeint DoSomething(string someString, int someInt);then you would use InvokeMember like this:-object obj = someType.InvokeMember("DoSomething",
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance,
null,
this,
new object[] {"Largest Integer", 1});or use some variables in the new object[] {...}. But what do you with the args if DoSomething takes out or ref parameters ?int DoSomething(out string someString, ref int someInt);Something like this will not work string someText = string.Empty;
int someInt = 0;
object obj = someType.InvokeMember("DoSomething",
BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic …

Offering __FILE__ and __LINE__ for C# !!!

THIS POST USES SYNTAXHIGHLIGHTER AND HAS ISSUES RENDERING CODE ONLY IN CHROME
Not the same way but we could say better.
Visual Studio 2012, another power packed release of Visual Studio, among a lot of other powerful fancy language features, offers the ability to deduce the method caller details at compile time.
C++ offered the compiler defined macros __FILE__ and __LINE__ (and __DATE__ and __TIME__), which are primarily intended for diagnostic purposes in a program, whereby the caller information is captured and logged. For instance, using __LINE__ would be replaced with the exact line number in the file where this macro has been used. That sometimes beats the purpose and doesn't gives us what we actually expect. Let's see.

For instance, suppose you wish to write a verbose Log method with an idea to print rich diagnostic details, it would look something like this.
void LogException(const std::string& logText, const std::string& fileName, …