[chuck-users] static function overloading

[Andrew C. Smith]

Getting OT...

>  but maybe it's useful for the include file trick.

Wait, is there an include file trick? I thought we just had
Machine.add(), which requires paths relative to ChucK's run spot.
Also, wouldn't "#include ..." not work in the same way as C, since
there can only be one public class per file? I guess it would sort of
work, but you could only have local classes for the current and
sporked shreds.

I would comment on the original question, but I didn't know what
static functions were until Kas explained them. So, thanks Kas, sounds
cool.

Andrew

2009/9/8 Stefan Blixt <stefan.blixt at gmail.com>:
> ChucK often seems inspired by Java, and I suspect that's the case here.
>  Static functions and variables in Java works just like you describe for
> ChucK - the class is here basically just a kind of namespace that wraps the
> methods and variables, since they live outside the object oriented world of
> instances.
> In Java, static items are always specified using that namespace, e.g.:
> class A {
>  static int v;
> }
> int b = A.v;
> Inside classes, you can omit the class name, which is implied:
> class A {
>   static int v;
>   int f() {
>     int b = v;
>   }
> }
> You can reuse a static name in a subclass. However, this is not the same as
> overloading, since you always specify the class containing the static
> member, and if you don't specify it it is implied that it is in the same
> class:
>
> public class A {
>
> static int f() {
>
> return 1;
>
> }
>
> static int test() {
>
> return f();
>
> }
>
> }
>
> public class B extends A {
>
> static int f() {
>
> return 2;
>
> }
>
> static int test() {
>
> return f();
>
> }
>
> }
>
> A.test() will return 1 and B.test() will return 2. This code would work
> exactly the same if we removed the extends - static code bypasses the object
> stuff.
>
> Maybe the ChucK people thought this behaviour might make for hard-to-read
> code, and simply banned reuse of static method names? There is no other
> reason I can see why this isn't allowed. I'm personally a bit confused abut
> the static concept in ChucK, since we can put stuff on "the ground" outside
> class space, but maybe it's useful for the include file trick.
>
> /Stefan
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Stefan;
>> > I forget - what separates static functions from other kinds of
>> > functions?
>>
>> They can only reference other static members and variables. That may
>> sound like a downside but it also means they can be called without a
>> object instance.
>>
>> This becomes useful in the case of functors (see the recent forum
>> discussion), for example. Right now if we want overloading we also
>> must create object instances of all extended classes. Right now this
>> isn't much of a issue aside from me finding those extra lines ugly
>> because they don't actually do anything useful (well, aside from
>> making it work at all), but I anticipate problems if/when the much
>> desired include functionality would get here.
>>
>> I would like to be able to extend classes without needing a object
>> instance when instances don't actually do anything meaningful in the
>> case that I might have.
>>
>> To me this seems like a solid case but it wouldn't be the first time
>> that the nice people with ".cs." in their email address would expose
>> me for the hack that I am ;-). The error message implies that the
>> matter has been given some thought but I don't get what the reasoning
>> is.
>>
>> Kas.
>> _______________________________________________
>> chuck-users mailing list
>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>
>
>
> --
> Release me, insect, or I will destroy the Cosmos!
>
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>
>