How would this look for instantiating a generic object?
my_object = Foo.method(:new).of(Bar).call
That seems strange. Perhaps we need to possibilities: the above for generic
methods and the following for generic classes:
my_object = Foo.of(Bar).new
# where Foo would be defined as Foo<T> in C#
my_clone = my_object.clone
# where clone would have a C# signature of T Clone<T>()
or should that be:
my_clone = my_object.method(:clone).of(Bar).call?
# and allow my_object.clone to have an overloaded
# C# signature of object Clone()?
~Ryan
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Tomas Matousek <tomas.matou...@microsoft.com
> wrote:
> Mine has also an issue that just occurred to me. If you do:
>
>
>
> class C
>
> content.load of(Texture2D), "foo"
>
> end
>
>
>
> "of" resolves to Module#of which would return a C<Texture2D> if C was a
> generic type or throws an exception.
>
> So that's not good either. We would need a different method name for
> generic method constructor than for generic type. Maybe "method_of"?
>
>
>
> As for your idea:
>
> content.of(T).load
>
>
>
> is looks backwards. The content is not of T… the load is. I think this
> would be confusing.
>
>
>
> Until we figure out some nice clean solution that works in 100% cases, I
> would implement the following as the first step for generic method support:
>
>
>
> content.method(:load).of(Texture2D).call("mytexture")
>
>
>
> (Note, you can do the same in Ruby for regular methods:
> "foo".method(:center).call(100))
>
>
>
> anything else is just a convenience and anyone could define it via standard
> Ruby means.
>
>
>
> Tomas
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
