[chuck-users] Intraspection - an example of what I'm attempting

[mike clemow]

Yes, I like this.  Or a new type: Class.

As long as the method of comparison is safe (as safe as the typing system,
anyway), it makes tons of sense to do it.

If we used className() and it returned an array of strings, would we get the
entire hierarchy?  I mean:

a[0]: Object
a[1]: UGen
a[2]: SinOsc

?

Mike


On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Michael Heuer <heuermh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Right, that's why I proposed className().
>
> A real instanceof keyword would return true for all of
>
> (myUgen instanceof SinOsc.class)
> (myUgen instanceof UGen.class)
> (myUgen instanceof Object.class)
>
> which would help with Kas' use case.  How about
>
> fun String className()
> fun String[] classNames()
>
> ?
>
> mike clemow <michaelclemow at gmail.com>:
> > That bit of code would be great, if it worked.  What I made did this:
> > if( myUgen.typeOf() == "SinOsc" ) {     // a string is ugly...
> >     myUgen $ SinOsc => SinOsc s;
> > }
> >
> > However, if the reserved word-- SinOsc --could be made equivalent to what
> > was returned from .typeOf() or .className(), then it would be totally
> great.
> > My hack was trivial, but this one wouldn't be.
> > Mike
> > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Michael Heuer <heuermh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> mike clemow wrote:
> >>
> >> > Honestly, I've run into this a lot in the past and I'm familiar with
> >> > this
> >> > frustration.  I even hacked my own version of chuck in which each
> object
> >> > responded to a .typeOf(); message that returned a string
> representation
> >> > (I
> >> > know, it's ugly) of it's class name.  I used this to make do smart
> >> > casting,
> >> > which I admit is still a huge compromise.  I still think that each
> class
> >> > name (reserved word) should be able to represent itself.  Something to
> >> > the
> >> > tune of:
> >> > if( myUgen.typeOf() == SinOsc ) {    // seems reasonable, right?
> >> >     myUgen $ SinOsc => SinOsc s;
> >> > }
> >>
> >> I don't find that ugly, it's a cool hack.  What if the method were
> >> called className()?
> >>
> >> I vote for adding such to the git repo and push to get it added
> upstream.
> >>
> >>   michael
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> chuck-users mailing list
> >> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> >> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://michaelclemow.com
> > http://semiotech.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > chuck-users mailing list
> > chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>



-- 
http://michaelclemow.com
http://semiotech.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20101109/ab4b80ac/attachment.htm>