Opinion: What should I name the generic handle type?

Andreas Jonsson · 2011-08-08T17:13:19

To all AngelScript users: I would like to ask for your opinion on what I should name the new generic handle type, that I will implement for release 2.21.1. Let me first explain what this new type is: The generic handle type is a new data type that is able to store a handle of any reference type. This is different from the 'any' type, which can store both handles and values. The generic handle type also have the benefit of using an intuitive syntax, i.e. you store the handle in the type through a normal handle assignment, and you retrieve the handle from the type through a cast operation. The type also permits you to do handle comparisons with the 'is' operator. To the script writer the type will look like it is the base type of all reference types or perhaps better a common interface that all reference types implement (both script classes and application registered types). // Example usage (here I've used the name 'ref' for the generic handle type) // Declare the variables object @o = object(); ref @r; // It's not allowed to declare the type without the @, as it doesn't make sense in this case // Store a reference to 'object' in the generic handle @r = o; // Determine if the reference is pointing a specific object (also works with '!is') if( r is o ) { /* do something */ } // Cast the handle to the desired type (returns null if the stored type is not compatible) @o = cast<object>(r); // Clear the handle @r = null; Now, my dilemma is what I should name the type. I have a few different ideas, and would like to hear your opinions in order to choose the best. 'ref' is the currently what I like best, as it is short and clearly indicates that it is a reference to something. 'handle' would serve the same purpose as 'ref', and would be in line with what a handle is in AngelScript. 'object' would give an indication that it is a base type, which it isn't. In some cases it doesn't make as much sense to say a type is an object, e.g. an array, would you say an array is an object? Also, the name 'object' is quite often used by the application for other purposes. 'unknown' is also appropriate, as it is not known beforehand the real type of the reference stored in the type. Let me hear your opinions, or perhaps suggestions for a completely different name. Of course, this type is once more not a built-in type, but rather registered by the application with a pre-implemented add-on, so if you do not like the name I chose in the end you are always free to use something else (or perhaps not include the type at all).

jacmoe

2,179

August 04, 2011 03:31 PM

No, to be honest, it's not really a problem.

'ref' is alright.
It's a universally acknowledged standard abbreviation of 'reference'.
That would work.

'gen' is not, as it's unclear what it means.
'han' would not be acceptable either..

But this is nerd-jacking. :cool:

Too many projects; too much time

_orm_

112

August 04, 2011 03:56 PM

No, to be honest, it's not really a problem.

'ref' is alright.
It's a universally acknowledged standard abbreviation of 'reference'.
That would work.

'gen' is not, as it's unclear what it means.
'han' would not be acceptable either..

But this is nerd-jacking.

Nerd-jacking is good when thinking of new, and frankly needed, features of a language.

What about just providing a field that lets us pick the name when we register it, because we will all have our own opinions on what it should be called.

And you said it's an addon, are there new features coming to the language in the next iteration that allows this? Or is it just a stripped down version of the 'any' type?

WitchLord

Author

4,860

August 04, 2011 05:40 PM

There is a new engine feature to support this. The generic handle type (for lack of a decision on the name) is registered as a value type but with a new flag asOBJ_ASHANDLE to allow the script to treat it as if it was a handle.

The dynamic casting is also supported with an new alternative function signature for the asBEHAVE_REF_CAST behaviour: 'void f(?&out)'. This will let the generic handle type receive the type id of the expected type, and return the appropriate pointer (or null if the cast is invalid).

The new engine features are already implemented in the SVN, though not yet documented.

AngelCode.com - game development and more - Reference DB - game developer references
AngelScript - free scripting library - BMFont - free bitmap font generator - Tower - free puzzle game

_orm_

112

August 04, 2011 06:15 PM

There is a new engine feature to support this. The generic handle type (for lack of a decision on the name) is registered as a value type but with a new flag asOBJ_ASHANDLE to allow the script to treat it as if it was a handle.

The dynamic casting is also supported with an new alternative function signature for the asBEHAVE_REF_CAST behaviour: 'void f(?&out)'. This will let the generic handle type receive the type id of the expected type, and return the appropriate pointer (or null if the cast is invalid).

The new engine features are already implemented in the SVN, though not yet documented.

So basically handles to value types? This could be very handy indeed.

WitchLord

Author

4,860

August 08, 2011 05:13 PM

No, it is not handles to value types. The ASHANDLE type is a value type, but it is treated as a handle by the script. You still cannot store a reference to a value type, as the reference could outlive the scope of the value type.

Anyway, the vote is a tie for ref and handle, so I quite selfishly make my own vote count more, thus the decision is: "ref".

Thanks for your opinions everyone.

Regards,
Andreas

AngelCode.com - game development and more - Reference DB - game developer references
AngelScript - free scripting library - BMFont - free bitmap font generator - Tower - free puzzle game

Opinion: What should I name the generic handle type?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Opinion: What should I name the generic handle type?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines