[chuck-users] Public sporking?

[Kassen]

> Hi Kas,
>

Hey, Peter,


>
> I don't see what the problem is.


There is no real problem, there is just some strange behaviour and a lack of
documentation. The word "public" as far as I know isn't defined at all aside
from how it affects classes. I'm really quite sure it's not defined for
functions in ChucK.


> You're not sporking 'a public'; surely public is an access modifier that
> can apply to functions perfectly viably.


Well, clearly it's a function but I defined it by calling it a "public".

if

fun void foo() {}

is a "function"

then by my logic

public void bar() { }

is a "public". I suppose this is pushing some linguistic envelopes but you
have to admit there is some logic to it, right? ;¬)



> I wouldn't expect the code you posted to be illegal, although there may be
> some slight redundancy.


I agree. I have no issue beyond a lack of documentation and being surprised
I can use the word there at all and that it works exactly like "fun".


> I haven't chucked for a while, so this could be inaccurate but I think that
> 'public' there will just mean that you could run (perhaps by sporking, or
> not, it's somewhat irrelevant) that function from other files once that one
> had been loaded (and also that you couldn't redefine the function foo()
> until you restart the VM).


I just tried that and you can't. You can't run a "public" from another file,
I think you are confused with "public" as it applies to classes. This;

public class foo { static int bar; }

can be instantiated from other files and can't be redefined until you
restart the VM. That's fine... well it's at least documented, it's useful
too.

What "public functions" ought to be and how -if in any way- they are
different from normal functions isn't at all clear and even after trying
everything I could think of I can't find a single difference.

At the risk of repeating myself; there is no issue with that at all
(yet....) but it's not documented and I don't see the logic to having a
second word, which is why I asked. I would imagine it's there as a
place-holder for future usage but it can't hurt to ask and be sure.

I'd be really happy if I *could* run them from different files, especially
if I could also change them later, presumably on the condition that I'd keep
the return type the same.



> Also, can you not spork a function that returns something, just not access
> the returned value?  I don't see why not.
>

No, I fear you can't. I'd explain why but as luck would have it there was a
topic on this list on this exact subject just yesterday called "return
values of sporked functions" where Mike & me covered this very subject. I
recommend you look that one up in your inbox.

Yours,
Kas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20080607/c01318d5/attachment.html>