另一种方法是使用特殊的变量:arguments，这是一个实现:

function sum() {
    var x = 0;
    for (var i = 0; i < arguments.length; ++i) {
        x += arguments[i];
    }
    return x;
}

所以你可以修改这段代码:

function sum(){
    var s = 0;
    if (typeof arguments[0] !== "undefined") s += arguments[0];
.
.
.
    return s;
}

下面是一种使用参数类型允许真正的方法重载的方法，如下所示:

Func(new Point());
Func(new Dimension());
Func(new Dimension(), new Point());
Func(0, 0, 0, 0);

Edit(2018):自2011年编写以来，直接方法调用的速度大大提高，而重载方法的速度却没有提高。

这不是我推荐的方法，但思考如何解决这类问题是一个值得思考的练习。

这里是不同方法的基准测试- https://jsperf.com/function-overloading。它显示函数重载(考虑到类型)可以在谷歌Chrome的V8 16.0(测试版)慢大约13倍。

除了传递一个对象(例如{x: 0, y: 0})，还可以在适当的时候采用C方法，相应地命名方法。例如，vector . addvector (vector)， vector . addvector。AddIntegers(x, y, z，…)和Vector.AddArray(integerArray)。您可以查看C库，例如OpenGL，以获得命名灵感。

编辑:我已经添加了一个基准，用于传递一个对象，并使用arg和arg. hasownproperty ('param')中的'param'测试对象，函数重载比传递一个对象和检查属性快得多(至少在这个基准测试中)。

From a design perspective, function overloading is only valid or logical if the overloaded parameters correspond to the same action. So it stands to reason that there ought to be an underlying method that is only concerned with specific details, otherwise that may indicate inappropriate design choices. So one could also resolve the use of function overloading by converting data to a respective object. Of course one must consider the scope of the problem as there's no need in making elaborate designs if your intention is just to print a name, but for the design of frameworks and libraries such thought is justified.

我的例子来自一个矩形实现——因此提到了维和点。也许Rectangle可以向Dimension and Point原型添加一个GetRectangle()方法，然后对函数重载问题进行排序。那原语呢?好的，我们有参数length，这现在是一个有效的测试，因为对象有一个GetRectangle()方法。

function Dimension() {}
function Point() {}

var Util = {};

Util.Redirect = function (args, func) {
  'use strict';
  var REDIRECT_ARGUMENT_COUNT = 2;

  if(arguments.length - REDIRECT_ARGUMENT_COUNT !== args.length) {
    return null;
  }

  for(var i = REDIRECT_ARGUMENT_COUNT; i < arguments.length; ++i) {
    var argsIndex = i-REDIRECT_ARGUMENT_COUNT;
    var currentArgument = args[argsIndex];
    var currentType = arguments[i];
    if(typeof(currentType) === 'object') {
      currentType = currentType.constructor;
    }
    if(typeof(currentType) === 'number') {
      currentType = 'number';
    }
    if(typeof(currentType) === 'string' && currentType === '') {
      currentType = 'string';
    }
    if(typeof(currentType) === 'function') {
      if(!(currentArgument instanceof currentType)) {
        return null;
      }
    } else {
      if(typeof(currentArgument) !== currentType) {
        return null;
      }
    } 
  }
  return [func.apply(this, args)];
}

function FuncPoint(point) {}
function FuncDimension(dimension) {}
function FuncDimensionPoint(dimension, point) {}
function FuncXYWidthHeight(x, y, width, height) { }

function Func() {
  Util.Redirect(arguments, FuncPoint, Point);
  Util.Redirect(arguments, FuncDimension, Dimension);
  Util.Redirect(arguments, FuncDimensionPoint, Dimension, Point);
  Util.Redirect(arguments, FuncXYWidthHeight, 0, 0, 0, 0);
}

Func(new Point());
Func(new Dimension());
Func(new Dimension(), new Point());
Func(0, 0, 0, 0);

我经常这样做:

C#:

public string CatStrings(string p1)                  {return p1;}
public string CatStrings(string p1, int p2)          {return p1+p2.ToString();}
public string CatStrings(string p1, int p2, bool p3) {return p1+p2.ToString()+p3.ToString();}

CatStrings("one");        // result = one
CatStrings("one",2);      // result = one2
CatStrings("one",2,true); // result = one2true

JavaScript相当于:

function CatStrings(p1, p2, p3)
{
  var s = p1;
  if(typeof p2 !== "undefined") {s += p2;}
  if(typeof p3 !== "undefined") {s += p3;}
  return s;
};

CatStrings("one");        // result = one
CatStrings("one",2);      // result = one2
CatStrings("one",2,true); // result = one2true

This particular example is actually more elegant in javascript than C#. Parameters which are not specified are 'undefined' in javascript, which evaluates to false in an if statement. However, the function definition does not convey the information that p2 and p3 are optional. If you need a lot of overloading, jQuery has decided to use an object as the parameter, for example, jQuery.ajax(options). I agree with them that this is the most powerful and clearly documentable approach to overloading, but I rarely need more than one or two quick optional parameters.

编辑:根据Ian的建议更改IF测试

看看这个。它很酷。 http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-method-overloading/ 技巧Javascript，让你做这样的调用:

var users = new Users();
users.find(); // Finds all
users.find("John"); // Finds users by name
users.find("John", "Resig"); // Finds users by first and last name

不是每个人都知道可以在函数签名中直接进行解构赋值。

得益于此，您可以轻松地定义非常灵活的方法签名，恕我直言，这比Java方法重载更优越。

例子:

const myFunction = (({a, b, c}) => {
    console.log(a, b, c);
});

myFunction({a: 1, b: 2});
myFunction({a: 1, b: 2, c: 3});

您甚至不需要考虑参数的顺序，并且调用语句和目标方法签名之间具有命名一致性。

你也可以指定默认值:

const myFunction = (({a = 1, b = 2, c} = {}) => {
    console.log(a, b, c);
});

多年来，我一直在使用这个函数来美化我的重载:

function overload(){
  const fs = arguments, fallback = fs[fs.length - 1];
  return function(){
    const f = fs[arguments.length] || (arguments.length >= fs.length ? fallback : null);
    return f.apply(this, arguments);
  }
}

型:

function curry1(f){
  return curry2(f, f.length);
}

function curry2(f, minimum){
  return function(...applied){
    if (applied.length >= minimum) {
      return f.apply(this, applied);
    } else {
      return curry2(function(...args){
        return f.apply(this, applied.concat(args));
      }, minimum - applied.length);
    }
  }
}

export const curry = overload(null, curry1, curry2);

看看jQuery的off方法:

  function off( types, selector, fn ) {
    var handleObj, type;
    if ( types && types.preventDefault && types.handleObj ) {

        // ( event )  dispatched jQuery.Event
        handleObj = types.handleObj;
        jQuery( types.delegateTarget ).off(
            handleObj.namespace ?
                handleObj.origType + "." + handleObj.namespace :
                handleObj.origType,
            handleObj.selector,
            handleObj.handler
        );
        return this;
    }
    if ( typeof types === "object" ) {

        // ( types-object [, selector] )
        for ( type in types ) {
            this.off( type, selector, types[ type ] );
        }
        return this;
    }
    if ( selector === false || typeof selector === "function" ) {

        // ( types [, fn] )
        fn = selector;
        selector = undefined;
    }
    if ( fn === false ) {
        fn = returnFalse;
    }
    return this.each( function() {
        jQuery.event.remove( this, types, fn, selector );
    } );
  }

许多重载函数在优化性能时几乎不可读。你必须破译函数的头部。这可能比使用我提供的重载函数更快;但是，从人的角度来看，它在识别调用了哪个重载方面要慢一些。