On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:08:49 -0500, spir <denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:33:39 -0200
Guilherme Vieira <n2.nitro...@gmail.com> wrote:
When I create factory methods like those proposed in this thread, I feel
like I'm hijacking a core aspect of the language. Goddamn it, it's the
constructor! IMHO, everybody expects to construct things.. using
constructors (unless there's a restriction like not being allowed to
construct stuff anytime, but only under certain conditions, which was
the
case with SoundSources).
Factory methods should, again just in my opinion, be used to exploit
polymorphism or enhance the system design, not to solve problems of the
language dealing with method overloading. It's just.. creepy. Is it
just me?
I feel like I'm giving too much and barely getting one thirth in
return...
@Steven: This is great answer to the question you asked me (and I did
not answer) about the "clear meaning" of constructors in a PL. (Else,
let's just get rid of them alltogether, and of the notion too, and just
use object factories?)
A factory method *forwards to* a constructor. You are not losing the
construction aspect (or its special qualities), in fact, it can sit beside
a constructor.
There are many cases where a constructor is not as clear as a factory
method. Take for std.array.Appender. The constructor that takes an
initial array as input:
int[1024] buf;
auto app = Appender!(int[])(buf);
vs.
auto app = appender(buf);
The factory method looks clearer to me.
I think it's really subjective depending on the situation. All I'm saying
is that there is nothing IMO that rules out factory methods as
construction means on principal.
-Steve
