ruby-core

So, is it correct to assume that for language constructs that create built-in types like Range, Array, Hash etc that user-defined initialize methods are never called?

[#11549] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/06/28

> -----Original Message-----

[#11550] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2007/06/28

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:24:48 +0900, "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:

[#11553] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — "Marcel Molina Jr." <marcel@...> 2007/06/28

On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 06:54:49AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:

[#11554] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — murphy <murphy@...> 2007/06/28

> ... for language constructs that create

[#11560] Re: Proc initialize method not called under certain circumstances — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/06/29

Hi,

[#11548] NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass special cased for singleton classes? — "John Lam (CLR)" <jflam@...>

If you do:

3 messages 2007/06/28

[#11557] Re: NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass special cased for singleton classes? — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/06/29

Hi,

[#11559] Re: NilClass, TrueClass, FalseClass special cased for singleton classes? — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...> 2007/06/29

John Lam (CLR) wrote:

[#11555] Name of Classes — =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Wolfgang_N=E1dasi-Donner?= <wonado@...>

Moin, moin!

2 messages 2007/06/28

[#11558] Re: Name of Classes — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/06/29

Moin,

[#11556] delete_if with destructive methods in block — Florian Gross <florgro@...>

Hi,

3 messages 2007/06/29

[#11561] Re: [BUG] delete_if with destructive methods in block — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2007/06/29

Hi,

[#11567] Re: delete_if with destructive methods in block — Florian Gross <florgro@...> 2007/06/30

That fixes it for me. I got no regressions from Rubinius' hash spec

[#11562] Can clear frozen array using initialize() — Florian Gross <florgro@...>

Hi,

2 messages 2007/06/29

[#11563] Re: [BUG] Can clear frozen array using initialize() — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/06/30

Hi,

Re: method_missing for Enumerator

From: TRANS <transfire@...>

Date: 2007-06-25 19:15:36 UTC

List: ruby-core #11536

On 6/25/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message "Re: method_missing for Enumerator"
> >     on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:04:55 +0900, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > |What do others think of this for 1.9+?
> >
> > |Seems safe enough to me. Am I right in thinking this? Yes, there is
> > |some potential for uncaught NoMethodErrors, of course, but given the
> > |nature of this, that should be pretty rare.
> >
> > Although I really love the idea like this, this is too dangerous for
> > core functionality.  I'd rather see something in hacking library, such
> > as Facets or ActiveSupport.
> >
>
> I had the same reaction.  There are issues with how you compose uses
> of method_missing.
>
> Note that rspec had to do away with using method_missing because it
> and activerecord were 'fighting' over it.
>
> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/01/10/rspec-should-use_a_little_less_magic

It doesn't explain how the conflict was arising. It's usually pretty
easy to avoid conflicts --as long as the set of methods don't overlap.
You simply alias the original method_missing and use it as a fallback.
RSpec's old syntax was fundamentally flawed (a bad idea they got from
Rails!) and unfortunately the new syntax isn't much better either.
Anyway, I digress.

In the case of Enumerator, it's is not an issue since this represents
a core functionality, not some meta-debugging add-on.

Thanks,
T.

Thread

Prev Next

In This Thread

Prev Next