[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++)
From: |
Pascal Bourguignon |
Subject: |
Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++) |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 00:17:29 +0100 (CET) |
Stefan Urbanek <stefanurbanek@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Me too. And, what also about literal objects like arrays or numbers?
>
> ConstantArray *array = @array(@"Item 1", @"Item 2");
> or:
> array = @(@"Item 1", @"Item 2");
I don't see the difference with:
NSArray* array=[NSArray arrayWithObjects:@"Item 1",@"Item 2",0];
> And numbers:
> ConstantNumber *value = @value(1);
> or
> ConstantNumber *intValue = @1;
> ConstantNumber *doubleValue = @1.0;
or with:
NSNumber* intValue=[NSNumber numberWithInteger:1];
NSNumber* doubleValue=[NSNumber numberWithDouble:1.0];
> And even dictionaries:
> ConstantDictionary *dict = @{@"Key" = @"Value"};
or with:
NSDictionary* dict=[NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys:
@"Key1",@"Value1",
@"Key2",@"Value2",
0];
> Some default classes should be used like ConstantArray, ConstantNumber, and it
> should be redefined by some gcc option, like now there is
> -fconstant-string-class. Then, for example, ConstantNumber can be subclass of
> NSValue. Imagine, then you would be able to write:
The why don't you just use options such as:
-DConstantString=NSString \
-DConstantArray=NSArray \
-DConstantDictionary=NSDictionary \
...
if you only want to write
ConstantDictionary* dict;
You could even add some macros such as:
#define BD [NSDictionary dictionaryWithObjectsAndKeys:
#define ED ,0]
to be able to write:
ConstantDictionary* dict = BD @"Key", @"Value" ED;
Ans similar for arrays, numbers, etc.
> [dictionary setObject:@12.0 forValue:@"Size"];
>
> Just an idea. I think, it can be userful.
>
> What do you thing about it?
I don't think it's needed.
> How is it difficult to have something like this?
>
> Stefan
A more useful idea would be to change the C preprocessor to be able to
handle variable number of parameters in macros. Just forget it.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ (o_ Software patents are endangering
() ASCII ribbon against html email //\ the computer industry all around
/\ and Microsoft attachments. V_/ the world http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
1962:DO20I=1.100 2001:my($f)=`fortune`; http://petition.eurolinux.org/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/IT d? s++:++(+++)>++ a C+++ UB+++L++++$S+X++++>$ P- L+++ E++ W++
N++ o-- K- w------ O- M++$ V PS+E++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5? X+ R !tv b++(+)
DI+++ D++ G++ e+++ h+(++) r? y---? UF++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), (continued)
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), Björn Gohla, 2001/11/19
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), Bjoern Giesler, 2001/11/20
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), Björn Gohla, 2001/11/20
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), Philippe C.D. Robert, 2001/11/20
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), Philippe C.D. Robert, 2001/11/20
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), Markus Grabert, 2001/11/20
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), Markus Grabert, 2001/11/20
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++),
Pascal Bourguignon <=
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), Dan Pascu, 2001/11/20
- Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++), Balazs Pataki, 2001/11/20
- Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++, Stan Shebs, 2001/11/19
- Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++, Ovidiu Predescu, 2001/11/19
Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++, dewar, 2001/11/19
RE: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++, Bissell, Tim, 2001/11/20