Re^2: What's the point of this 'overload' idiom?

Overloading as a general concept is something you want very rarely, but is very useful when you do want it.

I really like that statement. Well put.

One area where overloading is highly desired is during unit testing. Although I'd classify it as 'overwriting' rather than overloading, the premise is the same. Make a function do something different than what the original does. For example, Mock::Sub does exactly this. Overriding functions during testing happens very often and is hugely useful.

Comment on Re^2: What's the point of this 'overload' idiom?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: What's the point of this 'overload' idiom? by LanX (Sage) on Dec 07, 2022 at 14:25 UTC
I might be wrong, but I think the technical terms for overwriting functions are overriding for built-ins monkey patching for imported functions and methods I'd use overloading explicitly for perlops But this might be restricted to Perl lingo and different in other languages (the line between operators, built-ins and functions is blurred and depends on context) And I have to admit that I'm anal about terminology, a "maladie professionnelle" of studying math... Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^4: What's the point of this 'overload' idiom? by eyepopslikeamosquito (Bishop) on Dec 08, 2022 at 12:40 UTC
I agree with the LanX on the terminology here ... as I did last time. ;-) I think Wikipedia agrees too: Monkey patch Operator overloading Dependency injection	[reply]
Re^3: What's the point of this 'overload' idiom? by eyepopslikeamosquito (Bishop) on Dec 08, 2022 at 12:40 UTC
As a satisfied long-time user of Test::MockObject can you sell me on why I should try Mock::Sub instead? Update: I'm a bit rusty on all this stuff, just found Test::MockModule, recommended in the Test::MockObject doco. :)	[reply]


Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
	PerlMonks