No there isn’t. You can’t overload methods based on return type. Overload resolution takes into account the function signature. A function signature is made up of: function name cv-qualifiers parameter types And here’s the quote: 1.3.11 signature the information about a function that participates in overload resolution (13.3): its parameter-type-list (8.3.5) and, if the function … Read more
You can use the attribute if you want your code to do overloading. [ActionName(“MyOverloadedName”)] But, you’ll have to use a different action name for the same http method (as others have said). So it’s just semantics at that point. Would you rather have the name in your code or your attribute? Phil has an article … Read more
Contrary to what others are saying, overloading by return type is possible and is done by some modern languages. The usual objection is that in code like int func(); string func(); int main() { func(); } you can’t tell which func() is being called. This can be resolved in a few ways: Have a predictable … Read more
The best way to do function overloading with parameters is not to check the argument length or the types; checking the types will just make your code slow and you have the fun of Arrays, nulls, Objects, etc. What most developers do is tack on an object as the last argument to their methods. This … Read more
Java always calls the method that best suits your argument. Auto boxing and implicit upcasting is only performed if there’s no method which can be called without casting / auto boxing. The List interface specifies two remove methods (please note the naming of the arguments): remove(Object o) remove(int index) That means that list.remove(1) removes the … Read more
Yes! In the time since this question was asked, standard C (no extensions) has effectively gained support for function overloading (not operators), thanks to the addition of the _Generic keyword in C11. (supported in GCC since version 4.9) (Overloading isn’t truly “built-in” in the fashion shown in the question, but it’s dead easy to implement … Read more
The clearest way to express polymorphism is via an abstract base class (or interface) public abstract class Human{ … public abstract void goPee(); } This class is abstract because the goPee() method is not definable for Humans. It is only definable for the subclasses Male and Female. Also, Human is an abstract concept — You … Read more
Java will always try to use the most specific applicable version of a method that’s available (see JLS §15.12.2). Object, char[] and Integer can all take null as a valid value. Therefore all 3 version are applicable, so Java will have to find the most specific one. Since Object is the super-type of char[], the … Read more
No, the structure you found is how Java handles it (that is, with overloading instead of default parameters). For constructors, See Effective Java: Programming Language Guide’s Item 1 tip (Consider static factory methods instead of constructors) if the overloading is getting complicated. For other methods, renaming some cases or using a parameter object can help. … Read more
For starters, you are trying to cast between an Object, String, and a primitive, int. This simply will not work. Objects cannot be cast to primitives, and vice-versa. A String, comprises of an array of char‘s wrapped into an Object. An int, comprises of a single signed decimal number. When you attempt to run a … Read more