Hi,

I've got a lot of shared_ptr underneath my script objects and because of the new features of 2.29.2 I wanted to try registering the handy "operator bool" that allow testing shared_ptr like this :

if( myShared ){
} 

For some reason I can't make opConv or opImplConv to work for booleans. To make sure I wasn't doing something stupid on the c++ side, I tried doing the same in the script using the code provided in the documentation but without success.

It is an extremely useful feature of shared_ptr in c++ and I'd love to be able to expose the same feature for the classes I register to angelscript.

Here's what I tried in c++ :

engine->RegisterObjectMethod( "ObjectRef", "bool opImplConv() const", asMETHODPR(ObjectRef, operator bool, () const, bool ), asCALL_THISCALL ); 

and in Angelscript:

class MyObj
{
    double myValue;
    double opImplConv() const  { return myValue; }
    bool opImplConv() const  { return myValue > 0; }
    // bool opConv() const  { return myValue > 0; }
};

MyObj c;
c.myValue = 0.12345;

double cDouble 	= c; // this works
bool 	cBool	= c; // this doesn't and gives "MainSection (66, 16) : ERR  : Can't implicitly convert from 'MyObj&' to 'bool'."

Is this a limitation of the new conversion operator or am I missing something obvious?

Thanks in advance!

Simon.

Thanks,

This makes sense but wouldn't it be useful to have an alternative when you know what you are doing? I mean if you deliberately write a bool operator in your class, I guess it is probably because you want your class to behave differently and it means that the conversion to bool is well defined as well.

I don't know maybe in this case adding an opBool to the language would make more sense?

Following the above discussion, I am too in a situation where a bool conversion would be very usefull.

I have a lot of system objects registered as variables into Angel Script, that represent physical digital inputs from hardware.

What I am currently trying to do is to allow operation like:

out1 = In3 || (In4 && in7);

or

if(In3 && In8) ...

Is this even possible without an implicit bool conversion?

Could be possible to allow this type of operations maybe subject to a configuration variable?

Thanks.

Mau.

That would be great!

Thanks.

Mau.

That's great! Thanks a lot Andreas.