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

[mike clemow]

> ... You could also use a .isA() member function to implement hack-y
> generic container classes purely in ChucK code, which would be really cool
> to have.

Yes-Yes!

> Perhaps the solution here is adding a Object.typeName static method/static
> variable, which returns a string, allowing code like s.isA(SinOsc.typeName)
> to work.  That doesn't win any awards for terseness, but it seems like a
> good way to type-check this at compile-time without adding a new keyword.

I like this idea.  What about a compromise:

s.isA( SinOsc.type )

I think that reads better.  Also, while I'm more in favor of a static
member--for typing's sake--it seems to be the Chuckian way to
differentiate between .gain and .gain(), the latter being the accessor
methods that returns the value.  Hence,

s.isA( SinOsc.type() )

seems to be more in keeping with the rest of Chuck, stylistically
speaking.  I'll poke around for another static method on which to
model this one.

Cheers,
Mike