Why would you ever want to do this?
-
Maybe to write your own strlen...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
Although in some strange realm that may be something one needs to do, if one were writing their own strlen(...), would it not be better to give it its own name, too? Or maybe create some weird-ass overload if the language permits it? On the other hand, if it's scope is wide enough, think of the fun you could have with other members of some team when their code goes insane for no discernible reason.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
uopz_rename — Rename a function at runtime
This is how framework bloats start to happen?
Full Reset
Imagine the pranks you could pull on your coworkers :laugh:
-
Imagine the pranks you could pull on your coworkers :laugh:
-
Lopatir wrote:
there's no vomit emoji!
This one comes close: X| Failing that, either 🤮 or 🤢 would do the trick.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
uopz_rename — Rename a function at runtime
This is how framework bloats start to happen?
Full Reset
Someone told me that in Forth, every token is a symbol of a defined value. So you may define 3.14159 to have the value 3.0. Or to have the symbol 3 have the value 17. I never programmed in Forth, so I never tested out if this is true. If it is ... In spite of JavaScript, Forth, Python, Java and whathaveyou of late, later and latest binding languages: I still love those languages that are "You know what you get". Compile-time, static, reliable languages!
-
uopz_rename — Rename a function at runtime
This is how framework bloats start to happen?
Full Reset
What do you achieve that is different from an "override" or something as primitive as providing a subclass implementation of a virtual function? Once you let the cats loose, you loose control of them. You can't say "Define your own functions by providing implementation of virtual functions, but in no other way!" Once you have opened the cage, they run loose. There is not that much difference between providing an alternate virtual function definition from replacing one real function definition by another one.
-
uopz_rename — Rename a function at runtime
This is how framework bloats start to happen?
Full Reset
Perhaps because I want to use the name for something else. For example: // is 'name' a strong lender? bool strlen( char const* name);
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
If I remember right, PHP did not have anything like namespaces. I think this was their grand alternative to solving name collision. Just what I would expect from guys playing around with a badly thought through interpreter.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
uopz_rename — Rename a function at runtime
This is how framework bloats start to happen?
Full Reset
Maybe not this specific example, but you could use it in testing (similar to monkey patching functions for unit tests in other languages). I’d never recommend using monkey patching in production code. It is helpful in unit testing though to patch functions outside the unit or to patch database access functions during unit testing. This is, of course, provided you unpatch the function at the end of the test. Not too sure if PHP has a defer mechanism for unpatching when the function is no longer in scope, but that is one way to test a single unit and have predictable interactions with external code (an external call to the unit fails, returns weird data, returns expected data, etc).
Sr. Software Engineer Go, Java, Python, Bash, Docker https://c2technology.net
-
One of the reasons I refuse to work in Ruby. [Monkey-patching](http://www.virtuouscode.com/2008/02/23/why-monkeypatching-is-destroying-ruby/). Or this amusing what-if scenario:
You can add methods right to core classes! You don’t have to call Time.now.advance(days: -1), you can write 1.day.ago! It makes Ruby a joy to read and write. Until…
You hit weird bugs because a patch changed Hash.
You get confused about which code actually ran, so you can’t debug it when it breaks.
And you finally figure out that all your problems were caused six months ago, when you monkey-patched Enumerable to make one line of code five characters shorter.
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
That example perfectly encapsulates one of the issues of modern programming languages. History repeats itself, as programmers in the 90's mistook less lines of code, with obfuscated one-liners. Now the line's not obfuscated, but you're still sacrificing so much... for a few lines of code. Never again, learn from history.
-
uopz_rename — Rename a function at runtime
This is how framework bloats start to happen?
Full Reset
In answer to the original question, I have needed to do this in TCL, for example redefining exit to check whether the work has been saved and put up a dialog box if not, before calling out to the original function which gets renamed "tcl_exit". Of course, destructors are a better solution to this problem, but not many languages have those :)
