On 15.07.2010 17:42, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from torhu (n...@spam.invalid)'s article
In case the answer is no, that example of yours is the perfect
opportunity to dust off the almost-forgotten with statement :)
with (Histogram(someData, 10)) {
barColor = getColor(255, 0, 0);
histType = HistType.Probability;
toFigure.title = "A Histogram";
xLabel = "Stuff";
showAsMain();
}
A bit more typing, but I'd say that it's easier to read.
But toFigure returns a Figure, not this. The idea is that you'd set all the
properties for the Plot, then put toFigure somewhere in your chain, then set all
the properties for the Figure.
Oops, guess I should have waited until after my nap with posting :)
You could nest the with statements, but then it's getting more verbose.
Might be better to add a convenience constructor or two to Figure that
takes care of the most common cases, and having toFigure forward to that.
with (Histogram(someData, 10)) {
barColor = getColor(255, 0, 0);
histType = HistType.Probability;
toFigure("A Histogram", "Stuff").showAsMain();
}
Other options include having a factory function that returns a
probability histogram, or even make it a template parameter and a have a
ProbabilityHistogram alias, etc. A few small changes could help a lot
for the common use cases. It would never be as quite flexible as what
you have now, but you might get close enough.
