Yeah, that must be it. Michael must not use popBack() method in his
classes. This...
fun Object at( int i ) {
return objs[i];
}
...properly returns an Object.
So, does that qualify as a bug in popBack() 's implementation?
-Mike
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Kassen
Mike;
Man, that sounds familiar... ;-)
I thought it might....
// this you can't do, apparently... fun Object pop() { //objects.popBack() @=> Object s; //return s; }
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.
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.
I really wish that there was at least an isInstanceOf() method (like in Java, sadly), we could use to programatically determine the class of an object at runtime. It's my personal, humble opinion that, if you're going to have a strict typing system, you should provide a way to programatically determine the type of anything.
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;
SinOsc foo; Event bar; <<<foo>>>; <<<bar>>>;
Clearly the info is there already.
Yours, Kas.
_______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users