A class by type

[doodadjs]

I think it will be interesting to have a class by type all inheriting from a single class named Type. This way, we could have methods and properties related to them.

Example:

UInt8.parse(s:String) UInt8.prototype.toUInt32() ....

[doodadjs]

So I suggest :

Number Boolean String Object Symbol Int8/16/32/64 UInt8/16/32/64 BigInt Float16/32/64/80/128 Decimal32/64/128 Boolean8x16/16x8/32x4/64x2/8x32/16x16/32x8/64x4 Int8x16/16x8/32x4/64x2/8x32/16x16/32x8/64x4 UInt8x16/16x8/32x4/64x2/8x32/16x16/32x8/64x4 Float32x4/64x2/32x8/64x4 Rational Complex Type void

Note that "void" is a special keyword. And "Type" replaces "any".

[sirisian]

Well not all the types have a parse function. I originally thought about a base type, but each type has a slightly different parse signature having radix or not for example. Some of the function like the SIMD types don't parse strings at all.

[doodadjs]

@sirisian Yes, I suggest a base type named "Type" (or whatever you want). The "parse" function was an example, and is not mandatory. Each type can have their own members, plus those of "Type"

[sirisian]

Will need to come back to this when I, or others, can think of actual members for such a base class. I get where you're coming from, but I can't really see any benefits other than simply saying that "any" is a base class of all the types. There are no methods in any of my notes that would go into such a base class. Adding such a spec note would mean nothing for implementers other than adding words to the spec.

Also I should point out I've actively stayed away from the word "Type" since it's a very generic word that programmers might want to use in their own code. The keyword "any" was used because it's very readable. When a beginner sees x:any they'll read "The type for x is 'any'." which is how every such statement is read. For example, x:uint8 is "The type for x is 'uint8'". x:type would read "The type for x is 'type'" which is awkward. The main goal with the syntax proposed is consistency everywhere.

[doodadjs]

@sirisian Yeah, the important thing is I'd like to avoid primitive types and "typeof". With the incoming of classes, I wish JS will be more object-oriented. I wish to be able to do "value instanceof UInt32" and for every type under JS. For the moment, type detection is a nightmare.

[sirisian]

Ideally I'd like both to work intuitively. A typeof returns a string and instanceof compares a type. Thanks for bringing instanceof since I don't have a section on it. I'll add an instanceof section like:

if (value instanceof uint8) {}
if (value instanceof (uint8):uint8) {}

Does that seem sufficient?

[doodadjs]

I don't understand the second one. Can you explain ?

[doodadjs]

Ok, I got it.

[sirisian]

More verbosely by the way:

value instanceof (uint8):uint8

is:

Object.getPrototypeOf(value) === ((uint8):uint8).prototype

Will need to think about this a bit, but I'd like for that to work somehow comparing just the signatures.

[doodadjs]

Maybe more like this, to respect the prototypes chain :

((uint8):uint8).prototype.isPrototypeOf(value)

I'm not sure that function signatures can fit with types. Yes, they are part of the declaration of a function, but should the signature itself be a type ? That force the runtime to generate them while they are declared... Maybe something like :

Function.hasSignature(myFunc, "(uint8):uint8")

EDIT:

or

myFunc [some keyword] (uint8):uint8

[doodadjs]

I opt for "use stricter" to change the behavior of "typeof", so :

typeof myFunc === "(uint8):uint8"

[sirisian]

That's already part of the spec?

[doodadjs]

Yeah I know. I had the feeling it was unsure.