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
|