Hey, Rogan!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div>I don't think so. This sounds like a bug to me. If there are two<br>
declarations of the exact same function, for example your foo<br>
functions, then chuck should at least warn you that you've overdefined<br>
that function and tell you which version it will use.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Yes, I agree there.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
Actually, as I type I can see one area where I might do this. If you<br>
have a class that inherits from another class, you may want to<br>
redefine a function to do something different than its parent class.<br>
For example.<br>
</blockquote><div><snip><br><br>That's a good example of the way things currently work. I agree this is proper but here you aren't "over defining" terms but you are "re-defining" them, working from a general case (or scope) towards a specific one. This is quite different (I feel) from the example I posted where the two definitions were within the same scope.<br>
<br>Re-defining functions while extending classes is kosher (and indeed essential), "over-defining" them is not, IMHO.<br><br>I hope that helps illustrate my case an I wish you a very good new year to you as well.<br>
<br>Yours,<br>Kas.<br></div></div><br>