Re: Is this the proper way to do it?
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 07:08:58 UTC, mw wrote:
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 05:52:34 UTC, Jack wrote:
I have a base class A, where I make specific operator
depending on the derived class type. Currently I'm using
something like this:
c is a class derived from A
bool shouldDoX = (cast(X)c) !is null || (cast(Y)c) !is null ||
(cast(K)c) !is null ... ;
as the number of cast(C) !is null is growing, I'm afraid of
this being a inelegant or even poor performance approach. How
would you do that?
Isn't that what virtual function is designed for?
```
class Base {
bool shouldDoX() {return false;}
}
class Derived: Base {
bool shouldDoX() {return true;}
}
class Derived2: Derived {
bool shouldDoX() {return false;}
}
...
```
sounds a better approach, I ended up using this. Lots of cast(X),
cast(Y), etc is probably slow and gets messy with time.
Re: Is this the proper way to do it?
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 19:40:43 UTC, frame wrote: On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 05:52:34 UTC, Jack wrote: I have a base class A, where I make specific operator depending on the derived class type. Currently I'm using something like this: c is a class derived from A bool shouldDoX = (cast(X)c) !is null || (cast(Y)c) !is null || (cast(K)c) !is null ... ; as the number of cast(C) !is null is growing, I'm afraid of this being a inelegant or even poor performance approach. How would you do that? I would just use an (empty) interface on that classes and do test for that. i did consider that too but ended up with virtual functions
Re: Is this the proper way to do it?
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 09:54:28 UTC, Rumbu wrote: On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 05:52:34 UTC, Jack wrote: I have a base class A, where I make specific operator depending on the derived class type. Currently I'm using something like this: c is a class derived from A bool shouldDoX = (cast(X)c) !is null || (cast(Y)c) !is null || (cast(K)c) !is null ... ; as the number of cast(C) !is null is growing, I'm afraid of this being a inelegant or even poor performance approach. How would you do that? Option 1, reverse the condition, && op will shortcut boolean conditions bool shouldNotDoX = cast(X)c && cast(Y)c && cast(K)c && ... Option 2, reverse the condition by testing the classes that are not supposed to "do" it, if you have less classes in that category. bool shoudldNotDoX = cast(P)c || cast(Q)c I ended up using virtual functions, this cast and conditions would get too big, ugly and messy with time
Re: Is this the proper way to do it?
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 05:52:34 UTC, Jack wrote: I have a base class A, where I make specific operator depending on the derived class type. Currently I'm using something like this: c is a class derived from A bool shouldDoX = (cast(X)c) !is null || (cast(Y)c) !is null || (cast(K)c) !is null ... ; as the number of cast(C) !is null is growing, I'm afraid of this being a inelegant or even poor performance approach. How would you do that? I would just use an (empty) interface on that classes and do test for that.
Re: Is this the proper way to do it?
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 05:52:34 UTC, Jack wrote: I have a base class A, where I make specific operator depending on the derived class type. Currently I'm using something like this: c is a class derived from A bool shouldDoX = (cast(X)c) !is null || (cast(Y)c) !is null || (cast(K)c) !is null ... ; as the number of cast(C) !is null is growing, I'm afraid of this being a inelegant or even poor performance approach. How would you do that? Option 1, reverse the condition, && op will shortcut boolean conditions bool shouldNotDoX = cast(X)c && cast(Y)c && cast(K)c && ... Option 2, reverse the condition by testing the classes that are not supposed to "do" it, if you have less classes in that category. bool shoudldNotDoX = cast(P)c || cast(Q)c
Re: Is this the proper way to do it?
On Saturday, 13 February 2021 at 05:52:34 UTC, Jack wrote:
I have a base class A, where I make specific operator depending
on the derived class type. Currently I'm using something like
this:
c is a class derived from A
bool shouldDoX = (cast(X)c) !is null || (cast(Y)c) !is null ||
(cast(K)c) !is null ... ;
as the number of cast(C) !is null is growing, I'm afraid of
this being a inelegant or even poor performance approach. How
would you do that?
Isn't that what virtual function is designed for?
```
class Base {
bool shouldDoX() {return false;}
}
class Derived: Base {
bool shouldDoX() {return true;}
}
class Derived2: Derived {
bool shouldDoX() {return false;}
}
...
```
