Re: overloading a function name in a package? How to query all names?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg110810] Re: overloading a function name in a package? How to query all names?
- From: David Bailey <dave at removedbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 07:43:57 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <i0urgq$6kp$1@smc.vnet.net>
On 06/07/10 10:03, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> Hello;
>
> I have package where I overloaded the same function name, defined to
> accept different arguments. as follows:
>
> -------------------
> BeginPackage["foo`"]
>
> boo1::usage="call me as follows: boo1[a,b]"
> boo1::usage="call me as follows: boo1[a]"
>
> Begin["`Private`"]
>
> boo1[a_,b_]:=Module[{},Print["in v1 of boo1"]];
>
> boo1[a_]:=Module[{},Print["in v2 of boo1"]];
>
> End[]
> EndPackage[]
> --------------------------------
>
> Now, I do
>
> <<foo`
>
> And I can call either of them OK
>
> boo1[1,2]
> boo1[1]
>
>
> But when I do
>
> Names["foo`*"]
>
> It only shows name boo1 once. (I can understand this*)
>
> And when I do
>
> ?foo`*
>
> It only list boo1 once. It seems to show the ::usage of the last one.
> OK. I can understand this.
>
> But, then, is there a way to show the user than I have more than one
> version of the same function name in the package? Without having to look
> into the package file?
>
> I'd like to overload the function name, since I need to call it
> differently sometimes, and I do not want to make up new names of the
> same function, as in booV1[], booV2[], etc... since they all do the same
> logical action, but accept different arguments depending on the options
> needed, and so they all just have the same name, and the correct version
> will be called depending on the arguments used.
>
> Overloading works OK when calling. I am just asking on how to show that
> I have more than one function of the same name in the package, so I know
> how to call each one.
>
> I looked a the docs, but so far, did not see anything. will keep looking....
>
> thanks
> --Nasser
>
>
You have assigned to 'boo1::usage' twice - the second assignment has
simply overwritten the first! You should combine the two explanations
into one string.
Note that there only is one name bool - it just has a definition spread
over more than one component.
David Bailey
http://www/dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk