This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 23, 2023. It is now read-only.
EitherType is not great, let's make it more clear #113
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
|
Thanks guys. I'll be using this now. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This one #111 got me thinking, EitherType for class members are not that great, let's explictly subtype all the shapes with 'virtual' base class: Shape.
It provides a convinient way of type checking:
shape.type == RECTorswitch (shape.type) { ... }and you can call a basic method
contains(x,y)without knowing the exact shape type.