开发者

AS3 - Retype/Cast an inherited variable permanently in a subclass?

开发者 https://www.devze.com 2023-03-14 21:53 出处:网络
Possibly bad practice but I\'m not well versed in software design anyway (I\'m sure this question would have been asked before but I can\'t seem to find the right terminology)...Anyhow, it\'s just ano

Possibly bad practice but I'm not well versed in software design anyway (I'm sure this question would have been asked before but I can't seem to find the right terminology)...Anyhow, it's just another curi开发者_高级运维osity of mine I'd like to have answered.

So I have worked in a way where I type a base class variable to type Object or Sprite or something similar so that in my subclasses, I can instantiate my custom classes into them and store it. And when I access it, I just cast that variable to ensure I can access the methods.

Take this example, so that you know what I'm talking about:

public class BaseClass
{
  protected var the_holder_var:Object;

  public function BaseClass()
  {
    //Whatever abstract implementation here...
  }
}

Now, my subclasses of that base class usually use an interface but for simplicity sake, I'll just write it without it.

public class AnExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
  public function AnExtendedClass()
  {
    //Instantiate my own class into the base class variable
    this.the_holder_var = new ACustomClassOfMine(); 

    //Then I can use the 'hackish' getter function below to 
    //access the var's functions.
    this.holder_var.somefunction()
  }

  private function get holder_var():ACustomClassOfMine
  {
    return this.the_holder_var as ACustomClassOfMine;
  }
}

This works and I'm sure it will make some ppl cringe (I sometimes cringe at it too). So now, my question, is there a way to recast/retype that base var in my extended subclass?

kinda like this:

public class ExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
  //Not possible I know, but as a reference to see what I'm asking about
  //Just want to change the type....
  override protected var the_holder_var:ACustomClassOfMine;

  public function ExtendedClass()
  {
    //Then I can forget about having that hackish getter method.
    this.the_holder_var = new ACustomClassOfMine();
    this.the_holder_var.somefunction();
  }
}

I was thinking of typing most of my base class vars that I use as holders as type * and retyping them as I extend the class. (I could use it here too but yeah...) Thoughts? Comments? Ideas?


I actually think your code (apart from the hypothetical addition at the end) is pretty alright. The practise of adding accessors to solve the type issue you're dealing with is a solid one. I would advise to rename the accessor to show it is a cast, maybe get holderVarAsCustom():ACustomClassOfMine (I'm also not a big fan of the underscores, that's another language's convention), but that's personal preference. What I'd do to solve your last problem is just create a matching setter function:

private function set holderVarAsCustom(value:ACustomClassOfMine):void {
  this.the_holder_var = value;
}

This way you can access the correctly typed holder var for both read and write operations with complete type safety:

holderVarAsCustom = new ACustomClassOfMine();
holderVarAsCustom.someFunction();

I would definately advise against dropping the type safety by including arrays and what not, that just makes it unstable.


I must admit that i'm a little confused as to why you want to do this, but here goes. Could you not utilise the fact that Array's can hold different data types. So something like this:

public class BaseClass
{
      protected var customStorage:Array;

      public function BaseClass()
      {
        //Whatever abstract implementation here...
      }
}

You could then access it with an associative method and a property:

public class AnExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
   private static const myName:String = "myName";

   public function AnExtendedClass()
   {
     //Instantiate my own class into the base class variable
     customStorage[myName] = new ACustomClassOfMine(); 
     objectIWant.somefunction()
   }

   private function get objectIWant():ACustomClassOfMine
   {
     return ACustomClassOfMine(customStorage[myName]);
   }
}

Is that any better?


I would not try to tinker this behaviour, since you can't change the declared type of a variable once declared, no matter how hard you try. What I do in such cases, I either cast the variable if I use it sparingly or the object it references may change, or I add another variable with the type I want and let the other variable point to the new one. Like this:

public class A {

    protected var object:Object;

    public function A() {
        //Whatever abstract implementation here...
    }

}

and

public class B extends A {

    protected var other:MyClass;

    public function B() {
        super();
        this.other = new MyClass();
        this.object = this.other;
    }

}

Having it this way, class A uses the object via the this.object reference, and class B can use the this.other or both. But both references point to the same object. The only issues with this are:

  • having two references for in the same class to the same object is ugly (so are untyped variables and casts)
  • if the object one of them may point can change during runtime, you must be really carefull to synchronize these changes
0

精彩评论

暂无评论...
验证码 换一张
取 消