Style question for user-defined types in C
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Style question for user-defined types in C
- From: Josh Haberman <jhaberman@...>
- Date: 2011年2月15日 07:12:39 +0000 (UTC)
Suppose I have a user-defined type implemented in C.
x = mytype.new()
Suppose my type has both data members (ie. passive) and methods
which actually perform an action. Is it preferred to use method
calls for both?
x:do_something(5) -- Clearly should be a function.
x:name() -- Called as a function, even though it's just data?
x.name -- Returned as a string -- is this better?
Aesthetically the last one seems more pleasing, since it makes clear
that it's just returning some data. But what do you all as Lua
programmers expect? I guess one downside of the second is that
it might suggest that you can set it also, which is not allowed
for my type:
-- Not allowed, but I can prevent this by implementing __newindex
x.name = "Haha!"
As a second question, most user-defined C types seem to be
constructed with "new()" functions (eg. mytype.new(). Is there
any precedent for using the __call metamethod to make construction
look like a function call?
x = mytype()
I want to make whatever choices are most idiomatic, but if there
are any noticeable efficiency differences that is a factor too.
Josh