Case-logic/enumerated types

Blake blake at kingdomrpg.com
Sun Oct 31 09:50:15 UTC 2004


On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:47:45 -0400, <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:

> An issue with enumerated types is that they are hard to extend.  What if
> you make a subclass, and want to have an extra choice available in the
> enumerated type?  With raw symbols this is fine.  With class-per-state
> this is fine.  But with a Pascal-like or C-like (or ML-like!) enumerated
> type, you can only extend it by editing the original definition.

I feel like saying "And this is =my= problem somehow?" but:

-> I would be happy just to have it private to a class.

-> If it were exposed, why would extending it be so challenging? They're  
just integers underneath, eh? I guess there'd be some issues with passing  
an enumerated type. Hmmm.


> Chuck is good at finding all the symbols that are available in an
> enumerated type.  Point to a variable which holds the Squeak equivelant
> of an enumerated type, and, if Chuck can figure out what the code is
> doing, the type of that variable will be the list of possible symbols.

What is Chuck? What is the Squeak-equivalent of an enumerated type?



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list