I have this ObjectType class which is a class to help me do something like this:
object.type = ObjectType.TWO
//ObjectType.as
package
{
public class ObjectType
{
public static var ONE:String = "one";
public static var TWO:String = "two";
public static var THREE:String = "three";
public function ObjectType()
{
}
}
}
Let's suppose I'm creating a new class and I need a property named type. In that property set function I want to make sure that it's value is one of the ObjectType variables. How can I achieve this?
public function set type(value:String):void
{
for (var o:Object in ObjectType) {
if (value == o)
this._type = value;
} else {
//error
}
}
}
Not performance aware but without modifying anything you can use describeType function to check the static field and get the value back:
function valueInClass(clazz:Class, value:*):Boolean {
return describeType(clazz).variable.(clazz[#name.toString()] == value).length() != 0
}
public function set type(value:String):void
{
if (valueInClass(ObjectType, value)) {
this._type = value;
} else {
//error
}
}
I suppose the second code example you presented doesn't work...
I think it is because you're using the for in loop a little bit wrong.
for (var blah:String in somewhere){
// blah represents a KEY of the somewhere object
// to get the value of this key, use:
var theValue = somewhere[blah];
}
It's the for each loop that loops through the values. But for now I'll use the for in.
Also, it's not in ObjectType, but rather in the class' prototype, that is in ObjectType.prototype.
So, to fix this:
for (var o:* in ObjectType.prototype) {
if (value == ObjectType.prototype[o])
this._type = value;
} else {
//error
}
}
You can solve this using reflection.
A similar question was asked just a few days ago, you should be able to use the same solution, found here.
It should be noted that while the the accepted answer is right, it's also really slow. Not something that you want to do a lot. There are three simpler solutions.
One: Check the value itself:
public function set type(value:String):void
{
if( value != ObjectType.ONE && value != ObjectType.TWO && value != ObjectType.THREE )
return;
}
Obviously, the more constants you have the check the harder this becomes.
Two: Use ints as your constants
Change your ObjectType class to use ints:
public class ObjectType
{
public static var NONE:int = 0;
public static var ONE:int = 1;
public static var TWO:int = 2;
public static var THREE:int = 3;
public static var TOTAL:int = 4;
}
Notice the NONE and TOTAL in there? This makes it easy to check if your value is in the right range:
public function set type(value:int):void
{
if( value <= ObjectType.NONE || value >= ObjectType.TOTAL )
return;
}
You can add more values as needed and you just need to update TOTAL and it'll still work. This needs each value to be in order though.
Three: Use Enums
While Flash has no in-build class for enums, there's a lot of solutions available. Check our the Enum class from Scott Bilas: http://scottbilas.com/blog/ultimate-as3-fake-enums/
Using this as your base class your ObjectType class becomes:
public final class ObjectType extends Enum
{
{ initEnum( ObjectType ); } // static ctor
public static const ONE:ObjectType = new ObjectType;
public static const TWO:ObjectType = new ObjectType;
public static const THREE:ObjectType = new ObjectType;
}
And your check now becomes:
public function set type(value:ObjectType):void
{
...
}
Here, your setter now becomes type safe and will throw errors if anything other than an ObjectType is used.
It turns out that if using an ENUM type of check you should check for the constants property, not variables as showin in the example here:
ActionScript - Determine If Value is Class Constant
Related
In Haxe, I created a class named MyClass like:
class MyClass {
var score: String;
public function new (score: Int) {
this.score = Std.string(score);
}
public function new (score: String) {
this.score = score;
}
}
I need multiple constructors but Haxe does not allow me to do. It throws this error from building phase:
*.hx:*: lines * : Duplicate constructor
The terminal process terminated with exit code: 1
How can I solve this problem?
This is known as method overloading, which is not supported by Haxe apart from externs (but might be in the future). There's multiple ways you could work around this.
A common workaround in the case of constructors would be to have a static "factory method" for the second constructor:
class MyClass {
var score:String;
public function new(score:String) {
this.score = score;
}
public static function fromInt(score:Int):MyClass {
return new MyClass(Std.string(score));
}
}
You could also have a single constructor that accepts both kinds of arguments:
class MyClass {
var score:String;
public function new(score:haxe.extern.EitherType<String, Int>) {
// technically there's no need for an if-else in this particular case, since there's
// no harm in calling `Std.string()` on something that's already a string
if (Std.is(score, String)) {
this.score = score;
} else {
this.score = Std.string(score);
}
}
}
However, I wouldn't recommend this approach, haxe.extern.EitherType is essentially Dynamic under the hood, which is bad for type safety and performance. Also, EitherType is technically only intended to be used on externs.
A more type-safe, but also slightly more verbose option would be haxe.ds.Either<String, Int>. Here you'd have to explicitly call the enum constructors: new MyClass(Left("100")) / new MyClass(Right(100)), and then use pattern matching to extract the value.
An abstract type that supports implicit conversions from String and Int might also be an option:
class Test {
static function main() {
var s1:Score = "100";
var s2:Score = 100;
}
}
abstract Score(String) from String {
#:from static function fromInt(i:Int):Score {
return Std.string(i);
}
}
Finally, there's also an experimental library that adds overloading support with macros, but I'm not sure if it supports constructors.
I recommend to use type parameter
class MyClass<T> {
var score:String;
public function new(score:T) {
this.score = Std.string(score);
}
}
You can also use type parameter at constructor
class MyClass {
var score:String;
public function new<T>(score:T) {
this.score = Std.string(score);
}
}
However, T used at constructor fails at runtime (CS and Java), it is not fixed yet (Haxe 4). Otherwise, you could do this
class MyClass {
var score:String;
#:generic public function new<#:const T>(score:T) {
this.score = Std.is(T, String) ? untyped score : Std.string(score);
}
}
which nicely produce code like this (CS)
__hx_this.score = ( (( T is string )) ? (score) : (global::Std.#string(score)) );
causing Std.string() to be called only if T is not a String.
Hej,
With a simple example as it is, you can just do something like that function new( ?s : String, ?n : Int ){} and Haxe will use the correct argument by type. But you'll be able to do new() and maybe you don't want.
I need to create some enum values, give it a default value and then compare it.
I have this enum class
public class Car
{
public static const Tesla:int = 1;
public static const Ford:int = 2;
}
How do I initiate a new Car enumn variable with a default value of "Tesla" and how do I compare the variable? I'm looking for something like this:
public var c:Car = new Car(Car.Tesla);
if (c == Car.Tesla){
// Do something
}
Edit, it is now changed to the following:
public final class Car
{
public static const Tesla:String = "tesla";
public static const Ford:String = "ford";
}
And in the mxml file:
public var c:String = Car.Tesla;
if (c == Car.Tesla){
// Do something
}
I have this enum class
Just so we're on the same page about it: that's not an enum and there are no enums in as3. The language doesn't have that feature.
How do I initiate a new Car enumn variable with a default value of "Tesla" and how do I compare the variable?
You cannot, because Car is a type and the static properties it has are of type int which is something completely different.
What you can do is this:
var c:int = Car.Tesla;
if (c == Car.Tesla){
// Do something
}
If you want to have a Car object instead, add a brand property to the class of type int, which you can then assign the value of your constants to:
var c:Car = new Car();
c.brand = Car.Tesla;
if (c.brand == Car.Tesla){
// Do something
}
You could also add a parameter to the constructor and insert the value there.
Btw. changing
public static const Tesla:int = 1;
to
public static const Tesla:String = "tesla";
will give you the chance to get more meaningful values during debugging. The built in constants like MouseEvent.CLICK are defined this way.
class Foo {
public function bar():void { ... }
}
var clazz:Class = Foo;
// ...enter the function (no Foo literal here)
var fun:Function = clazz["bar"]; // PROBLEM: returns null
// later
fun.call(new Foo(), ...);
What is the correct way to do the above? The Java equivalent of what I want to do is:
Method m = Foo.class.getMethod("bar", ...);
m.invoke(new Foo(), ...);
Actual code (with workaround):
class SerClass {
public var className:String;
public var name:String;
private var ser:String = null;
private var unser:Function = null;
public function SerClass(clazz:Class):void {
var type:XML = describeType(clazz);
className = type.#name;
// determine name
name = type.factory.metadata.(#name=="CompactType").arg.(#key=="name").#value;
// find unserializer
var mdesc:XML = XML(type.method.metadata.(#name=="Unserialize")).parent();
if (mdesc is XML) {
unser = clazz[mdesc.#name];
}
// find serializer
var sdesc:XML = XML(type.factory.method.metadata.(#name=="Serialize")).parent();
if (sdesc is XML) {
ser = sdesc.#name;
}
}
public function serialize(obj:Object, ous:ByteArray):void {
if (ser == null) throw new Error(name + " is not serializable");
obj[ser](ous);
}
public function unserialize(ins:ByteArray):Object {
if (unser == null) throw new Error(name + " is not unserializable");
return unser.call(null, ins);
}
}
Here the function bar only exist when your class is instanciated :
var foo:Foo = new Foo()
var fun:Function = foo.bar // <-- here you can get the function from the new instance
if you want to access it directlty you have to make it static:
class Foo {
public static function bar():void{ ... }
}
now you can access your function from the class Foo:
var fun:Function = Foo.bar
or
var clazz:Class = Foo
var fun:Function = clazz["bar"]
I am not sure about what you are intending to do.
However AS3Commons, especially the reflect package have API's that let you work with methods, instances and properties of a class.
There are also API methods to create instances of certain class types on the fly and call their respective methods.
Cheers
It's not
fun.call(new Foo(), ...);
Use instead since no parameters are required for the function
fun.call(clazz);
The first parameter as specified by adobe docs.
An object that specifies the value of thisObject within the function body.
[EDIT]
Forgot to point out you have to instantiate a non-static class with the "new" keyword.
var clazz:Class = new Foo();
[EDIT2]
Ok I played around and think I got what you want.
base.as
package{
public class Base {
public function Base() {
trace('Base constructor')
}
public function someFunc( ){
trace('worked');
}
}
}
//called with
var b:Base = new Base( );// note I am not type casting to Class
var func:Function = b.someFunc;
func.call( );
My workaround is to store the function name instead of the Function object.
var fun:String = "bar";
// later...
new Foo()[fun](...);
i'd like to throw an argument error if a particular function doesn't work without a passed value that also happens to be a public constant of the class containing the function.
is there anyway to determine if a class owns a public constant instead of having to iterate thru all of them?
something like this:
public static const HALIFAX:String = "halifax";
public static const MONTREAL:String = "montreal";
public static const TORONTO:String = "toronto";
private var cityProperty:String;
public function set city(value:String):void
{
if (!this.hasConstant(value))
throw new ArgumentError("set city value is not applicable.");
cityProperty = value;
}
public function get city():Strig
{
return cityProperty;
}
currently, for this functionality i have to write the city setter function like this:
public function set city(value:String):void
{
if (value != HALIFAX && value != MONTREAL && value != TORONTO)
throw new ArgumentError("set city value is not applicable.");
cityProperty = value;
}
is this the only way to accomplish this task?
Yes, if you use reflections:
private var type:Class;
private var description:XML;
private function hasConstant (str : String ) : Boolean
{
if (description == null)
{
type = getDefinitionByName (getQualifiedClassName (this)) as Class;
description = describeType (type);
}
for each ( var constant:XML in description.constant)
{
if (type[constant.#name] == str) return true;
}
return false;
}
Note that for this to work, all constants must always be String objects declared public static const.
I was looking for an answer to this question myself and found it annoying that hasOwnProperty() did not work for static properties. Turns out though, that if you cast your class to a Class object, it does work.
Here's an example:
public final class DisplayMode
{
public static const one: String = "one";
public static const two: String = "two";
public static const three: String = "three";
public static function isValid(aDisplayMode: String): Boolean {
return Class(DisplayMode).hasOwnProperty(aDisplayMode);
}
}
I owe this solution to jimmy5804 from this discussion, so hats off to him.
You should be able to use bracket notation to do this. For example:
var foo:Sprite = new Sprite();
foo.rotation = 20;
trace( foo["x"], foo["rotation"]); // traces "0 20"
or more specific to your case:
var bar:String = "rotation";
trace( foo[bar] ); // traces "20"
The only thing you have to look out for here, is that the bracket accessor will throw a ReferenceError if you ask for an object property that isn't there, such as:
trace ( foo["cat"] ); // throws ReferenceError
But it will not throw if you are asking for a static property:
trace ( Sprite["cat"] ); // traces "undefined"
So in your case you might try:
if ( this[value] == undefined ) {
throw new ArgumentError("set city value is not applicable.");
}
EDIT:
Sorry, I was confusing the const's names with their values.
For this to work on your problem you would have to make the String value the same as the const's name, so for example:
public static const HALIFAX:String = "HALIFAX";
then you could use the query as described above and it would give you the desired result.
I have a static Settings class where my application can retrieve settings from. The problem is that some of these settings are strings, while others are ints or numbers. Example:
package
{
public final class Settings
{
public static function retrieve(msg:String)
{
switch (msg)
{
case "register_link":
return "http://test.com/client/register.php";
break;
case "time_limit":
return 50;
break;
}
}
}
}
Now, in the first case it should send a string and in the second a uint. However, how do I set this in the function declarement? Instead of eg. function retrieve(msg:String):String or ...:uint? If I don't set any data type, I get a warning.
HanClinto has answered your question, but I would like to also just make a note of another possible solution that keeps the return types, typed. I also find it to be a cleaner solution.
Rather than a static retrieve function, you could just use static consts, such as:
package
{
public final class Settings
{
public static const REGISTER_LINK:String = "my link";
public static const TIME_LIMIT:uint= 50;
}
}
And so forth. It's personal preference, but I thought I would throw it out there.
Use *
public static function retrieve(msg:String):*
{
if (msg == "age") {
return 23;
} else {
return "hi!";
}
}