In C# I can overload methods on generic type as shown in the example below:
// http://ideone.com/QVooD
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
publ
Kinda hackish, and both methods need the same return type (here: Unit)...
def fooInt(list: List[Int]) = println("int")
def fooDouble(list: List[Double]) = println("double")
def foo[N <: AnyVal](list:List[N])(implicit m:ClassManifest[N]) = m.erasure match {
case c if c == classOf[Int] => fooInt(list.asInstanceOf[List[Int]])
case c if c == classOf[Double] => fooDouble(list.asInstanceOf[List[Double]])
case _ => error("No soup for you!")
}
foo(List(1,2,3,4))
//--> int
foo(List(1.0,2.0,3.0))
//--> double
The Manifest won't really help either becuase those will have the same type after erasure.
What will help having different numbers of arguments (or different types after erasure). I find having different numbers of implicit arguments can transparently solve this problem, and by using scala.Predef.DummyImplicit
, you don't even have to import an implicit anywhere.
class Test{
def foo(ints : List[Int])
def foo(doubles : List[Double])(implicit i1:DummyImplicit)
def foo(strings : List[String])(implicit i1:DummyImplicit, i2:DummyImplicit)
}
You would not do it like that in Scala. Why try to emulate something that can never work properly given JVM restrictions? Try idiomatic Scala instead:
trait Fooable[T] {
def foo : Unit
}
object IntListFoo extends Fooable[List[Int]] {
def foo {
println("I just print")
}
}
class DoubleListFoo(val l : List[Double]) extends Fooable[List[Double]] {
def foo {
println("I iterate over list and print it.")
l.foreach { e =>
println(e)
}
}
}
implicit def intlist2fooable(l : List[Int]) = IntListFoo
implicit def doublelist2fooable(l : List[Double]) = new DoubleListFoo(l)
Then, you can execute code like
List(1,2,3,4).foo
List(1.0,2.0,3.0).foo