PROPOSAL: Named and Optional parameters, "Java-style"

Rémi Forax forax at
Thu Oct 20 02:40:35 PDT 2011

On 10/20/2011 11:14 AM, Frédéric Martini wrote:
> (A) We already have this problem with varargs. For example with method foo()
> and foo(Object...args).
> In this case the empty foo() is called. We can opt for the same choice here.
> But you're right : there is still a problem if we use varargs and named-args
> : foo(Object...args) and foo(Object named=null). Which method is called when
> I call foo() ?
> I think it's reasonable to generate an "ambiguous" compilation error in this
> case, like when we have foo(CharSequence) and foo(Serializable) and we call
> foo("Hello")...

In that case, adding a default value to an existing method is not source 
compatible !

> (B) That's true... and I fear that this implies a change in the bytecode :(


More information about the coin-dev mailing list