custom properties to a sprite

[werehunt]

since I cant create a custom property on a sprite if extend a sprite, should be able to make a custom property then or do I need to use a movieClip?

[senocular]

Yes. The entire point of extending classes is to give them new properties or functionality. If you need a custom property on a Sprite, create a class that extends Sprite, define the property there, then use that class in place of the spot where before you needed the Sprite with the custom property

[Krilnon]

The entire point of extending classes is to give them not properties or functionality.

Maybe you meant new instead of not?

[senocular]

Maybe you meant new instead of not?

oops! Fixed; thanks!

[werehunt]

like so?



package {

import flash.display.Sprite;

public class CustomSprite extends Sprite {

private var _case:String;

public function CustomSprite( ) {

}

public function getCase():String{
return _case;
}

public function setCase(value:String):void{
_case = value;
}
}
}



var cs:CustomSprite = new CustomSprite();

trace(cs.getCase());

cs.setCase("V");

trace(cs.getCase());

[dail]

Yep.

[senocular]

Note that ActionScript supports accessors with getters and setters
http://livedocs.adobe.com/specs/actionscript/3/as3_specification92.html

[jloa]

Am, why not use setter/getter methods?


public function set case(value:String):void
{
_case = value;
}

public function get case():String
{
return _case;
}
Usage:

var cs:CustomSprite = new CustomSprite();
trace(cs.case);
cs.case = "V";
trace(cs.case);

[werehunt]

I know about getters and setters but I prefer this way, it feels more natural to me.

using setters it looks like you are setting a variable, but actually you are calling a method.

and then you think, this is a public variable?

shouldnt it be private?

and then you realize, oh its a setter...

using explicit way tells me immediately that I am calling a method.

and even lots of times when we say this for example:
mc.x = 100;
we are using a setter, its not a public variable, i still prefer the other way...

[qncenterlab13]

thanks for a great ideas you sahre..thanks

[qncenterlab13]

since I cant create a custom property on a sprite if extend a sprite, should be able to make a custom property then or do I need to use a movieClip?
Thanks for sharing
QnLabs (http://www.qncenter.com)

[jloa]

I know about getters and setters but I prefer this way, it feels more natural to me.

Ough, ok then. Just trying 2 help. ^_^
U c, setter/getter method r very useful. I don't know if it's really important 2 know whether it's a var or a method, but using setter/getter methods can for example update the display state of your class (btw the "width/height" properties of the DisplayObjects are methods actually, as they call the redraw() method after setting new value).

So, if u do not have to update smth in yr class - use public vars; if u have to - use getter/setters

[senocular]

Ough, ok then. Just trying 2 help. ^_^
U c, setter/getter method r very useful. I don't know if it's really important 2 know whether it's a var or a method, but using setter/getter methods can for example update the display state of your class (btw the "width/height" properties of the DisplayObjects are methods actually, as they call the redraw() method after setting new value).

So, if u do not have to update smth in yr class - use public vars; if u have to - use getter/setters

That's more of an argument between getter/setter properties and class member variables. It doesn't apply to methods. Methods offer all of the advantages as getter/setters, if not more. They mostly only differ in syntax when used.

[Krilnon]

Methods offer all of the advantages as getter/setters, if not more. They mostly only differ in syntax when used.

Unless you count the syntax of accessors as an advantage. :sure:

[senocular]

Unless you count the syntax of accessors as an advantage. :sure:

no one would dare do such a thing! :trout: