Re: Classdef embryonic support

[Ben Abbott]

On Jan 14, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Michael Goffioul wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Michael Goffioul wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Michael Goffioul wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > On Jan 6, 2013, at 10:35 PM, Michael Goffioul wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Michael Goffioul <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Just a heads up to let people know I've spent some time during my 
> > > > christmas holiday to start working again on the classdef branch. I've 
> > > > just pushed some changes to implement initial support for handle-class 
> > > > and value-class semantic. Don't expect too much out of it, but maybe 
> > > > some of you are interested in giving it a try. For instance, I'd be 
> > > > more than happy if someone would write unit tests for the classdef 
> > > > support.
> > > >
> > > > Did anybody have a chance to give it a try? Although far from finished, 
> > > > it's already somehow usable (you can define classes, methods, 
> > > > properties, use inheritance and make superclass calls; it also supports 
> > > > handle and value semantics).
> > > >
> > > > Michael.
> > >
> > > The classef branch now builds on MacOS X! :-)
> > >
> > > I'm new to classdef, so I borrowed an example from the Mathworks site, 
> > > made some modifications, and added some tests (see the attached payment.m)
> > >
> > > However, I'm not sure how to go about adding tests to the sources.  
> > > Perhaps syntax like below be added to the test feature?
> > >
> > > %!classdef payment
> > > %!   properties
> > > %!     rate;
> > > %!     term;
> > > %!     principle;
> > > %!   end
> > > %!   methods
> > > %!     function obj = payment (r, t, p)
> > > %!       obj.rate = r;
> > > %!       obj.term = t;
> > > %!       obj.principle = p;
> > > %!     end
> > > %!     function amt = amount (obj)
> > > %!       i = obj.rate / (12 * 100);
> > > %!       amt = (obj.principle * i) / (1 - (1 + i)^(-obj.term));
> > > %!     end
> > > %!   end
> > > %!endclassdef
> > >
> > > For now, tests can be added to a classdef m-file, but I don't see how 
> > > that would be committed.
> > >
> > > See how tests are designed for the old-style class in test/classes/.
> >
> > That's simple enough.  I've attached a changeset with some basic tests.  
> > Look ok?
> >
> > > Thanks for giving it a try, Ben. I'm fully aware of the limitations and 
> > > all these are on my (huge) TODO list. At the moment, what is supported is:
> > > - classdef file parsing
> > > - handle/value class semantic
> > > - class inheritance
> > > - property/method access with dot-notation
> > > - property/method access restriction (public, protected, private, cell 
> > > array of classes)
> > > - property accessors
> > > - array of objects(not complete, though)
> > >
> > > Michael.
> >
> > I'll start tinkering more with classdef.   As I come up to speed, I'll add 
> > more tests.
> >
> > Thanks, Ben.
> >
> > Maybe classed tests should be put into their own subdir, to avoid 
> > confusion. Also it might be clearer if the class names were chosen to 
> > reflect what is actually tested, or whether it's a 
> > base/abstract/derived/... class (e.g.: BaseHandleClass, DerivedValueClass, 
> > BaseSealed, privateProp, sealedMethod...) and similarly for property/method 
> > names.
> >
> > Michael
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Is placing the classdef tests in a classdef subdirectory ok?
> 
> The attached just moves the changeset I've already pushed.  If this location 
> is ok, I'll start populating additional test (but with more appropriate 
> names).
> 
> Yes, that should be fine. Thanks again for your help.
> 
> Michael.

Ok.  I've pushed the changest.

        http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/dd4258398a59

I assume more needs to be done on the autotools side for "make check" to 
include the new directory.  I'll take a look at that tomorrow.

Ben