Re: Overloading procedures with Float and Long_Float types

["Luke Guest" <lguest@bubball.com>]

> GLfloat (1.0) or better GLfloat'(1.0) is exactly that hint. It tells
> that the numeric literal 1.0 has to be converted to (the first case),
> or expected to be of (the second case) the designated type. How could
> it be otherwise? Carefully observe that the type of 1.0 is neither
> Float nor Long_Float. It is Universal_Real. (see ARM 2.4)

Fair enough.

> >Basically, it just seems to be wasting a good opportunity for overloading
> >here.
>
> Surely not.
>
> Generally, oveloading is not a very brilliant idea in the case like
> yours. Overloading is a way to make different things look similar.
> (polymorphic as it called in OO) And what is a difference between
> Float and Long_Float? The length of mantissa? This is a pure
> implementation detal, which has to be hidden. IMO the actual problem
> here is bad design. If you are witting an OpenGL application you have
> to choose which precision is suitable for this concrete application.
> If you are designing bindings to OpenGL, then it is better to place
> float and double things in two different [paths of] packages. And
> finally, calling subroutines with "magic" numeric literals is the most
> obscure way of programming.

Hmmm, this will also mean, that glVertex[234][is] wil cause problems here
(integer vertices). I also don't think it makes sense design wise to move
them into separate packages for int, short, float, double, as some apps
would like to mix them.

Maybe a good compromise here would be to either:

1) Not use overloading, and postfix the procedure call with the type, a la
OpenGL [FD], or
2) Move into separate packages and overload on number of parameters, a la
OpenGL [234].

Thanks,
Luke.