C#•7mo ago

✅ Conversions of types between two libraries

So I have two libraries (A and B) which both have their own Vector3 structs and in my project I want to pass them back and forth, because the libraries offer different functionality that uses the Vector3s. Do I have to create an intermediary representation that implements implicit conversions in both directions or is there a better way? A round-trip would look like this currently: LibA.Vector3 > MyCode.Vector3 > LibB.Vector3 > MyCode.Vector3 > LibA.Vector3 Not just does this create a lot of boiler-platey code if I have to do it for all of the other Mathematical structs (Vector2, Vector4, Quaternion, Matrix3x3, Matrix4x4 etc.) but it also seems kinda wasteful, if it actually has to allocate memory for each cast which is pretty much immediately discarded again...

12 Replies

Omnissiah•7mo ago

if it's floats and a struct it should be small enough to stay on the stack and not request heap memory ...but why offering different functionalities requires creating a custom vector type?

sibber•7mo ago

well you cant implicitly convert two types in one statement youd still have to explicitly cast to the middle man type so id just do extension methods until we get extensions

TheHelpfulHelperOP•7mo ago

Dont ask me why these libraries thought they needed to create their own Vector structs, something something memory layout I think or I dont really know. All I know is that I need to use the libraries and I cant edit them. Is there really no better way? That would potentially be a lot of extension methods...

SleepWellPupper•7mo ago

static class VectorExtensions
{
    public static LibB.Vector3 ToLibB(this LibA.Vector3 vector) => new LibB.Vector3(x: vector.X, y: vector.Y, z: vector.Z);
    \\the inverse also
}

static class VectorExtensions
{
    public static LibB.Vector3 ToLibB(this LibA.Vector3 vector) => new LibB.Vector3(x: vector.X, y: vector.Y, z: vector.Z);
    \\the inverse also
}

Where do you see a need for more extension methods? I believe these two methods were what @sibber 🇵🇸 had in mind, no?

sibber•7mo ago

i guess you could use a mapper like mapperly yes those are extension methods

SleepWellPupper•7mo ago

The point was:

Where do you see a need for more extension methods?

sibber•7mo ago

ah well to convert them? im not sure what you mean

SleepWellPupper•7mo ago

The question was aimed at @TheHelpfulHelper; they were concerned about using extension methods as there

would potentially be a lot of extension methods

I don't know the entire library use case context but from my perspective two conversion extension methods should suffice. I was curious as to what other methods they had in mind is all

TheHelpfulHelperOP•7mo ago

I just meant that two methods (back and forth) per common struct/class could potentially be a lot if you have a lot of them. I suppose it is still the best solution, but seems rather unsatisfying

SleepWellPupper•7mo ago

Hm yeah if there's more types than just vec3 I suppose that could get messy.

sibber•7mo ago

$close

MODiX•7mo ago

If you have no further questions, please use the /close command to mark the thread as answered

Gaming

Programming

✅ Conversions of types between two libraries