[chuck-users] determining the type of an Object in code

[Dan Zinkevich]

Mike

I haven't gotten around the typing issue yet, I'm working exclusively w/ 
floats, since they're relatively simple to convert to ints and durs.

I started out w/ ChucK and put together a pretty reusable class this 
past weekend, that includes all your standard add/subtract/merge/pop/no 
dups, etc, as well as a few different sorting algos 
(up/down/converge/diverge/random for now), with the long-term idea to 
create a flexible sequencer or arpeggiator. It would be great to apply 
these to a collection-like superclass, so I was hoping any headway (if 
any) could be shared before I get too married to floats.

Is the ChucK wiki the best place to post it for collaboration?

DFZ


mike clemow wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I personally believe that it's in the best interest of the Chuck
> community if this discussion stays on-list.  I hope that's okay with
> you--I'm not trying to step on anyone's privacy here.  How exactly are
> you getting around the typing issue?
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Daniel Zinkevich <dzinkevich at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Hi list,
>>
>> New here, and to ChucK in general, but I'm also working on a similar
>> collection class. Don't want to step on anyone's toes, Mike, let's talk
>> dzinkevich at gmail.com
>>
>> DFZ
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:29 PM, mike clemow <gelfmuse at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> I wanted to write a class that would abstract arrays like the
>>> Collection class in SuperCollider.  I guess I can't.  I would have to
>>> write a class for each type of object that I wanted to make
>>> Collections of.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> 2008/9/3 mike clemow <gelfmuse at gmail.com>
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi list,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a way to determine an object's type programmatically?
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> I don't think so, I thought for a moment that we could write a massively
>>>> overloaded function but then remembered arrays are separate types and
>>>>
>>>> int foo[ ];
>>>>
>>>> is a different type from
>>>>
>>>> int bar[ ] [ ];
>>>>
>>>> So we'd need a infinitely overloaded function...
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure why you could need this. I'm not sure in what kind of
>>>> situation
>>>> you would get a object from somewhere yet be unaware of it's type;
>>>> because
>>>> of our strong typing I don't think we ever get such objects (which can
>>>> be
>>>> nice yet is related to limitations as well).
>>>>
>>>> Could you illustrate the issue?
>>>>
>>>> Yours,
>>>> Kas.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> chuck-users mailing list
>>>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>>>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://semiotech.org
>>> http://semiotech.org/michael
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>