Thanks for sharing Josh, I also did not know that internal constructors
worked like that. And it *does* actually work as written with 0.3.
On Tue Jan 06 2015 at 11:37:37 AM Josh Langsfeld <jdla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:19:10 PM UTC-5, ele...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> This seems to work, providing the equivalent to C++ class data members,
>> any better suggestions?
>>
>> immutable MyObj_a end
>>
>> type MyObj
>> MyObj() = new()
>>
>> a::Int=0
>> MyObj(::Type{MyObj_a}) = a
>> function MyObj(::Type{MyObj_a}, i::Int)
>> a = i
>> end
>> end
>>
>> # nicer wrappers
>>
>> get_a(::Type{MyObj}) = MyObj(MyObj_a)
>> set_a(::Type{MyObj}, i::Int) = MyObj(MyObj_a, i)
>>
>> # and an immutable for luck
>>
>> get_b(::Type{MyObj}) = 55
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lex
>>
>
> This is a very interesting example of the edges of the language. I didn't
> know you could write constructors that didn't return new type objects.
> Going for maximum terseness, all you need is:
>
> type X
> _val::Int = 0
> X() = _val
> X(v::Int) = _val = v
> end
>
> And now, X(10) sets the value, X() retrieves it, and an actual X object
> can never be constructed. Pretty cool actually, though I don't know if it
> would work in 0.3.
>
