ooc-dev team mailing list archive

[<ndd@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Well singletons are more than namespaces, although I kinda hate this
pattern, here it goes:

you can choose to implement 'new' as your get method:

MySingle: class {

    _instance := static alloc() as This
    new: static func -> This { _instance }

}

if you dislike this (because 'new' sortof implies that it's a new
instance..) just use 'get' instead of 'new', there's not really a
convention here yet

also, there's no special syntax like Scala's object: I actually dislike
this bit of Scala's syntax, it's mostly useful for the main class in
Scala anyway.. (correct me if I'm wrong).

ndd

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:33:01 -0400, Oddity007 <oddity007@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Easy:  Don't.
> 
> ooc != Java
> 
> If you want a namespace sort of effect, just use namespaced imports:
> 
> import Source/Path/Foo into Foo
> 
> Foo doSomeStuff(10)
> 
> If you can't use namespaced imports (for one-file-monsters), use a 
> cover's static methods.
> 
> Foo: cover{
>   doSomeStuff: static func(argument: Int)
> }
> 
> Foo doSomeStuff(10)
> 
> On Sep 28, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Damian <damian.pop@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> What's the proper or preferred way to create a singleton in ooc? Is  > there something specific to do so? (like 'object' in scala, for  > example)
>> Thanks!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ooc-dev
>> Post to     : ooc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ooc-dev
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ooc-dev
> Post to     : ooc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ooc-dev
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp