Interface abstraction #28
Conversation
|
Key changes of this pull request so far:
|
|
Why did you replaced SaneHandle with a simple int? I prefer the class encapsulation of that concept. |
Craftplacer
force-pushed
the
interface-abstraction
branch
from
558a0d7 to
bd6eb2b
Compare
Craftplacer
force-pushed
the
interface-abstraction
branch
3 times, most recently
from
72364d3 to
40d1495
Compare
Craftplacer
force-pushed
the
interface-abstraction
branch
from
40d1495 to
cd76013
Compare
| Uint8List read({required int bufferSize}) { | ||
| _checkIfDisposed(); | ||
|
|
||
| final handle = _handle ??= _open(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe create a _handleOrOpen method/getter?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I disagree, because the behavior is already so apparent (_handle ??= _open() = "if handle is not null, return handle, otherwise open new handle"), it wouldn't bring much benefit other than it being an explicit method call.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unless you want to combine _open() and this behavior, then maybe we could do that, other than that, I don't see much reason. Happy to discuss.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry I totally forgotten your PR... too busy 😓
What I mean is to remove this line duplicated in almost each function:
- final handle = _handle ??= _open();
- dylib.sane_function(handle);
+ dylib.sane_function(_handleOrOpen);The goal is just to make the code less verbose.
And yes, this could be merged with open, or inside a dedicated getter/method 🤔
Resolves #18
Resolves #23