RE: [aspectj-dev] Pointcut overloading

[Eric Bodden <eric@xxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gregor Kiczales wrote:
> We didn't add it because there was no compelling reason to do so.
> 
> We tried to avoid adding any feature for which there was no
> compelling rationale. 
> 
> Adding it also conflicts to some extent with another feature that
> some have claimed would be nice, which is to not have to pass any
> "args" at all to a user defined pointcut that requires them, when
> you don't really want values.   
I see.
 
> At this point, out of consistency with call, execution and the
> other primitive pointcuts it *probably* makes most sense to add
> pointcut overloading and decide permanently against being able to
> drop the
> args to a user defined pointcut that requires them.   
I actually think that the two support each other. One could write
something like the following:

pointcut foo(Object o1): foo(Object o1, Object o2);

Which would be equal you what one had to do on the method level. This
would a) support overloading and b) realize the mechanism of omission
you describe.

Eric

- -- 
Eric Bodden
Chair I2 for Programming Languages and Program Analysis
RWTH Aachen University

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQj6J5swiFCm7RlWCEQI3IACfbeVy9Q/jN6eF5ko4kRp9e+yCyqIAni+F
s4QyCU7jbp5MmSfDHVn15Gg6
=CQdO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----