Walter, how could I make this work without anything else?

//-----------------
var bobby=new Dog("bobby")  //or w/o the parameter
bobby.color="black"         //or .setColor("black")
bobby.bark()
//-----------------

Without having to write any extra DMDScript code, but just by modifying/expanding the DMDScript source code.

Also, after that, would it be possible to write " ... new Animals.Dog(...)"?

_______________________
Carlos Santander Bernal

You'll have to right a new native object. A simple example is in protoerror.d. There's also dnumber, dstring, ddate, dmath, darray for reference.

"Carlos Santander B." <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cu0s1u$c6i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter, how could I make this work without anything else?
>
> //-----------------
> var bobby=new Dog("bobby")  //or w/o the parameter
> bobby.color="black"         //or .setColor("black")
> bobby.bark()
> //-----------------
>
> Without having to write any extra DMDScript code, but just by modifying/expanding the DMDScript source code.
>
> Also, after that, would it be possible to write " ... new
Animals.Dog(...)"?
>
> _______________________
> Carlos Santander Bernal

Walter wrote:
> You'll have to right a new native object. A simple example is in
> protoerror.d. There's also dnumber, dstring, ddate, dmath, darray for
> reference.
> 

Thanks! I got it now.

How about inheritance? Is it possible to implement?
Right now, I'm duplicating behavior by adding the same functions to the NativeFunctionDefinitions (or something like that) of each derived type, but I have to remove the type check in the functions. So, is there a way?

_______________________
Carlos Santander Bernal

"Carlos Santander B." <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cue6g6$g43$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > You'll have to right a new native object. A simple example is in protoerror.d. There's also dnumber, dstring, ddate, dmath, darray for reference.
> >
>
> Thanks! I got it now.
>
> How about inheritance? Is it possible to implement?
> Right now, I'm duplicating behavior by adding the same functions to the
> NativeFunctionDefinitions (or something like that) of each derived type,
> but I have to remove the type check in the functions. So, is there a way?

Javascript has a rather unusual way of doing inheritance, you do it by setting the prototype of the object to the object you wish to inherit from.

Walter wrote:
> 
> Javascript has a rather unusual way of doing inheritance, you do it by
> setting the prototype of the object to the object you wish to inherit from.
> 
> 

Something like this?

class MyClass : Dobject
{
	static Dobject getPrototype ()
	{
		//return a MyClassPrototype
	}
}
class MyClassPrototype : MyClass { ... }
class MySubClass : Dobject
{
	static Dobject getPrototype ()
	{
		//return a MyClassPrototype
	}
}

I think that's ok for inheriting, but what if I want MySubClass to have new features? Is it possible to somehow mix two prototypes?

What I'm doing right now is something like this:

class MyClass : Dobject
{
	static NativeFunctionData [] MyClassFunctions = ...;
	static Dobject getPrototype ()
	{
		//return a MyClassPrototype
	}
}
class MyClassPrototype : MyClass { ... }
class MySubClass : MyClass
{
	static NativeFunctionData [] MySubClassFunctions = ...;
	static Dobject getPrototype ()
	{
		//return a MySubClassPrototype
	}
}
class MySubClassPrototype : MySubClass { ... }

And I don't add the functions in the prototype but in the object, so each subclass can see their parent's functions, and can register like that.

The other issue with inheritance is when calling a member function, because in your code you have something like:

void* Dboolean_prototype_toString(...)
{
	if (!othis.isClass(TEXT_Boolean))
		//error
	else
	{ ... }
}

But now I've had to do this:

void * MyClass_prototype_foo(...)
{
	MyClass c=cast(MyClass) othis;
	if (!c)
		//error
	else
	{ ... }
}

Is that a good approach? Is it better or worse than checking if the name is correct?

_______________________
Carlos Santander Bernal

There's a distinction between doing a D inheritance and a script inheritance. I think you want the script inheritance, which is done by setting the .prototype property of the script object, not the D class. There are some examples in the script source code. For example, in protoerror.d, the constructor for D0_prototype sets its .prototype property to Derror's prototype.

"Carlos Santander B." <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cujgul$3tr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> >
> > Javascript has a rather unusual way of doing inheritance, you do it by setting the prototype of the object to the object you wish to inherit
from.
> >
> >
>
> Something like this?
>
> class MyClass : Dobject
> {
> static Dobject getPrototype ()
> {
> //return a MyClassPrototype
> }
> }
> class MyClassPrototype : MyClass { ... }
> class MySubClass : Dobject
> {
> static Dobject getPrototype ()
> {
> //return a MyClassPrototype
> }
> }
>
> I think that's ok for inheriting, but what if I want MySubClass to have new features? Is it possible to somehow mix two prototypes?
>
> What I'm doing right now is something like this:
>
> class MyClass : Dobject
> {
> static NativeFunctionData [] MyClassFunctions = ...;
> static Dobject getPrototype ()
> {
> //return a MyClassPrototype
> }
> }
> class MyClassPrototype : MyClass { ... }
> class MySubClass : MyClass
> {
> static NativeFunctionData [] MySubClassFunctions = ...;
> static Dobject getPrototype ()
> {
> //return a MySubClassPrototype
> }
> }
> class MySubClassPrototype : MySubClass { ... }
>
> And I don't add the functions in the prototype but in the object, so each subclass can see their parent's functions, and can register like
that.
>
> The other issue with inheritance is when calling a member function, because in your code you have something like:
>
> void* Dboolean_prototype_toString(...)
> {
> if (!othis.isClass(TEXT_Boolean))
> //error
> else
> { ... }
> }
>
> But now I've had to do this:
>
> void * MyClass_prototype_foo(...)
> {
> MyClass c=cast(MyClass) othis;
> if (!c)
> //error
> else
> { ... }
> }
>
> Is that a good approach? Is it better or worse than checking if the name is correct?
>
> _______________________
> Carlos Santander Bernal

Walter wrote:
> There's a distinction between doing a D inheritance and a script
> inheritance. I think you want the script inheritance, which is done by
> setting the .prototype property of the script object, not the D class. There
> are some examples in the script source code. For example, in protoerror.d,
> the constructor for D0_prototype sets its .prototype property to Derror's
> prototype.
> 

Well, I'm not sure I understand completely, or if I haven't explained myself correctly.

I want script inheritance, but I want to do it through D code. I know it's weird since DMDScript is dynamically typed, but there's some common behavior in the classes I'm adding that is better expressed as inheritance.

I'm specifically adding support for MinWin to DMDScript (and more later), so the user can write:

//note: this code actually works in my sandbox
var w=new MinWin.Window("foo")
var b=new MinWin.Button(w,"hi")
var t=new MinWin.Text(w,"hello")
b.visible(true)
t.visible(false)
w.visible(true)

"visible" is in fact a property that Window, Button and Text inherit from Component, so why should I write it more than once? But also each subclass has different properties that the others don't have.

That's the specific problem I'm trying to tackle, a problem I'm currently solving as a said before, but I'd like to know if there's a better way.

_______________________
Carlos Santander Bernal

"Carlos Santander B." <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cujvp9$fvr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > There's a distinction between doing a D inheritance and a script inheritance. I think you want the script inheritance, which is done by setting the .prototype property of the script object, not the D class.
There
> > are some examples in the script source code. For example, in
protoerror.d,
> > the constructor for D0_prototype sets its .prototype property to
Derror's
> > prototype.
> >
>
> Well, I'm not sure I understand completely, or if I haven't explained myself correctly.
>
> I want script inheritance, but I want to do it through D code. I know it's weird since DMDScript is dynamically typed, but there's some common behavior in the classes I'm adding that is better expressed as
inheritance.
>
> I'm specifically adding support for MinWin to DMDScript (and more
> later), so the user can write:
>
> //note: this code actually works in my sandbox
> var w=new MinWin.Window("foo")
> var b=new MinWin.Button(w,"hi")
> var t=new MinWin.Text(w,"hello")
> b.visible(true)
> t.visible(false)
> w.visible(true)
>
> "visible" is in fact a property that Window, Button and Text inherit from Component, so why should I write it more than once? But also each subclass has different properties that the others don't have.
>
> That's the specific problem I'm trying to tackle, a problem I'm currently solving as a said before, but I'd like to know if there's a better way.

Set the .prototype of the MinWin object to be the Component object.

Walter wrote:
> 
> 
> Set the .prototype of the MinWin object to be the Component object.
> 
> 

Thanks.

_______________________
Carlos Santander Bernal