[chuck-users] Intraspection - an example of what I'm attempting

[mike clemow]

That bit of code would be great, if it worked.  What I made did this:

if( myUgen.typeOf() == "SinOsc" ) {     // a string is ugly...
    myUgen $ SinOsc => SinOsc s;
}

However, if the reserved word-- SinOsc --could be made equivalent to what
was returned from .typeOf() or .className(), then it would be totally great.

My hack was trivial, but this one wouldn't be.

Mike

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Michael Heuer <heuermh at gmail.com> wrote:

> mike clemow wrote:
>
> > Honestly, I've run into this a lot in the past and I'm familiar with this
> > frustration.  I even hacked my own version of chuck in which each object
> > responded to a .typeOf(); message that returned a string representation
> (I
> > know, it's ugly) of it's class name.  I used this to make do smart
> casting,
> > which I admit is still a huge compromise.  I still think that each class
> > name (reserved word) should be able to represent itself.  Something to
> the
> > tune of:
> > if( myUgen.typeOf() == SinOsc ) {    // seems reasonable, right?
> >     myUgen $ SinOsc => SinOsc s;
> > }
>
> I don't find that ugly, it's a cool hack.  What if the method were
> called className()?
>
> I vote for adding such to the git repo and push to get it added upstream.
>
>   michael
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-users mailing list
> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>



-- 
http://michaelclemow.com
http://semiotech.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20101109/fb877dcf/attachment.htm>