I'm not a big fan of the "this" keyword. I agree if going to use it,
ensure to use it everywhere. Consistency is good. I like simplicity, and
dislike redundancy.
So, about "this", alternatively, don't use it anywhere, but maybe you
could throw an error if a function argument name is also member variable
name. Not sure what static analysis is available - given that its a
scripting language. There's not really a compilation step is there?
OR, perhaps another option, just thinking outside the box, if a function
argument does actually happen to match a member variable name - then
automatically force it to actually set that variable. When (if) this
becomes the expected behavior, I think it would enable simplifying some
things a lot.
Explaining with an example. Often, when I'm coding and the arg name is the
same as a member variable name, then I usually find myself setting that
early-ish in the code. (just using a pseudo code to explain, obviously not
real code;)
class Blahh
this.toX: TYPE_A
this.toX: TYPE_B
fn SetXandY(toX: TPYE_A, toY: TYPE_B )
this.toX = toX
this.toY = toY
enfunc
endclass
So, I find that pattern happens a lot. And it gets real tedious. I
think this could be simplified to the following;
class Blahh
toX: TYPE_A
toX: TYPE_B
fn SetXandY(toX, toY)
enfunc
endclass
ie. This would set the member variables, toX and toY automatically.
Now, we might want to do some sanity check on the argument before
clobbering whatever was in there previously. The developer could very
easily use another temporary name, for example prefixed with p_ as they
wish, and check it is in range for example, before setting it. Like so;
class Blahh
toX: TYPE_A
toX: TYPE_B
fn SetXandY(p_toX, toY)
if p_toX in range
toX = p_toX
else
ignore, or throw, or set some default, whatever for toX
endif
enfunc
endclass
In this last example, any matching names could be automatically set, so
here, the toY would be automatically set.
This is inspired by your idea from the constructor idea you had here;
def new(this.lnum, this.col)
enddef
I like that one :)
Cheers,
Chris Plewright
On Monday, 19 December 2022 at 10:00:22 UTC+11 Maxim Kim wrote:
>
>
> понедельник, 19 декабря 2022 г. в 00:33:24 UTC+11, Bram Moolenaar:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For object members most languages use the "this." prefix. But not
>> everywhere, which makes it inconsistent. A good example is a
>> constructor where object members that are also an argument need to be
>> prefixed with "this." to avoid a name collision, while other object
>> members are used without "this.". I find that very confusing. Example:
>>
>> SomeObject(String name)
>> {
>> this.name = name;
>> gender = Gender.unknown;
>> }
>>
>>
> I would go with this.name and this.gender while accessing the variables.
>
>
>>
>> One thing I'm not yet sure about is the declaration. Currently it works
>> like this:
>>
>> this.name: string
>> this.gender: Gender
>>
>> and
>
> var name: string
> var gender: Gender
>
> to declare them.
>
>
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/0f9af573-98b6-47b5-aba3-eb36f8c19d1cn%40googlegroups.com.
