Open kjx opened 8 years ago
Presumably overloading(...)
would take an argument listing the other overloadings?
We should probably do the same for methods that share name parts with other methods. So assert(_)shouldBe(_)
overloads assert(_)
, and assert(_)shouldBe(_)description(_)
overloads assert(_)shouldBe(_)
.
Presumably the intent is to make readers of the code defining a module aware that the use of overloaded names is intentional? It might also help to detect the spelling mistakes (shoudlBe
instead of shouldBe
) that I just corrected.
Or: we could write tests.
We have annotations to signal overriding: now we have arity overloading, should we have an annotation to signal that?
(because I don't particularly like arity overloading, I'd go so far as to say an annotation to permit overloading)