Hi all, I'm new to OOP concepts and I'm trying to port an old code that used to make massive use of structs to a class-based architecture.
I have a class named "Component" with a method called "Cascade. This are the input parser lines of the Cascade method
function obj = Cascade(varargin)
switch nargin
case 1
if iscell(varargin{1})&&length(varargin{1})>1
nDev = length(varargin{1});
obj = Cascade(varargin{1},varargin{2});
for iD = 2:(nDev-1)
obj = Cascade(obj,varargin{iD+1});
end
return
else
error('one input argument is allowed for at least 1x2 cell arrays of devices');
end
case 2
if (varargin{1}.Out.nPorts==varargin{2}.In.nPorts)
Cmatrix = (1:varargin{1}.Out.nPorts)'*[1,1];
else
error('number of ports in cascaded devices do not correspond, provide a valid connection matrix');
end
case 3
Cmatrix = varargin{3};
case 4
error('Unsupported number of inputs');
end
CMP1 = varargin{1};
CMP2 = varargin{2};
I basically want to operate on two "components" and iteratively call the method if I pass a bigger collection.
Is there a way to make this method work if I call it like
CMP = Cascade({CMP1,CMP2,CMP3});
instead of throwing the error
Undefined function 'Cascade' for input arguments of type 'cell'?
Of course I could redefine "Cascade" as to be able to do something like
CMP = Cascade(CMP1, {CMP2,CMP3});
And this will obviously work, but it makes less logical sense to me. Another way would be of defining an external version of Cascade which just parse the inputs but I don't like this solution either since I want everything contained in the class definition.
