Hi Cyrille, On Sep 3, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Cyrille.Damez@laposte.net wrote:
On Thursday 03 September 2009 22:17:04 Kassen wrote:
Wouldn't writing a Vector class, then creating a array of those come down to this?
Not quite, because I can't add member functions that would perform "horizontal" operations (e.g. norm() for vectors, or draw() for probability arrays).
Sometimes I create public classes just as namespaces to encapsulate functionality. You could have public class Probabilities that contains a bunch of static members and then create a Vector class that has-a float[] and whatever else it needs and wraps Probabilities.norm () in member function Vector.norm(). Would that be a compromise? Or am I missing something? -mike
We don't have operator overloading right now. At least you can't overload them yourself; of course the ChucK operator is quite overloaded.
Indeed. That must have been why I assumed we could.
Thanks for the answers! _______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users