Mike;<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Man, that sounds familiar... ;-)<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I thought it might....<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> // this you can't do, apparently...<br>
fun Object pop() {<br>
//objects.popBack() @=> Object s;<br>
//return s;<br>
}<br></blockquote><div><br>Actually it seems like objects.popBack() will return something of type void. Sounds like another case of arrays mucking with the type system to me.<br><br>I don't think the type system would be that bad if it weren't for stuff like that. Arrays seem to somehow lose some of the type of some objects at times.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
I really wish that there was at least an isInstanceOf() method (like<br>
in Java, sadly), we could use to programatically determine the class<br>
of an object at runtime. It's my personal, humble opinion that, if<br>
you're going to have a strict typing system, you should provide a way<br>
to programatically determine the type of anything.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>This sounds like a very good idea to me. At the very least it should make debugging situations like the one you have here much easier. Right now I tend to simply print objects to determine their type;<br>
<br>SinOsc foo;<br>Event bar;<br><<<foo>>>;<br><<<bar>>>;<br><br>Clearly the info is there already.<br></div></div><br>Yours,<br>Kas.<br>