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: "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@...>

Date: 2007-06-25 20:24:27 UTC

List: ruby-core #11538

On 6/25/07, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.

The problem is when you can't in general tell if the methods overlap.
For example, your method_missing doesn't handle a particular set of
methods, iit just blindly forwards to the elements.

A lot of uses of method_missing are dynamic, and don't have a fixed
set of messages they handle. The point is that it's quite hard if not
impossible to come up with a set of 'standards' for composing
method_missing which don't provide opportunities for unpleasant
surprises.

> 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.

Not sure if it's the syntax or the implementation.  As far as I can
see doing away with the use of method_missing didn't require a syntax
change.  The big problem I sense with RSpec it how many methods they
add to both Object and Kernel.  I'm not sure how good it is for a test
tool to alter the subjects of the test so much.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

Thread

Prev Next

In This Thread

Prev Next