From: Jonas Pfenniger <zimbatm@...>
Date: 2007-10-12T01:21:51+09:00
Subject: Re: Why does def return nil?

2007/10/9, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>:
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 06:28 , Jonas Pfenniger wrote:
> > Another argument against using Symbols is that you will grow the
> > symbol hash table, even if you only use a fraction of them. Since that
> > table can't be garbage-collected, it can be quite problematic.
>
> You're doing that simply by defining the method in the first place.
> Symbol values (at least used to) map directly to method names, which
> explains why you can't do things like "".intern.

Hm, thanks for the insight (and Austin Ziegler too).

I think that the reasoning about intern is not right. If I am right,
you can create symbols of any string except the empty-ones. Try
"Comment �a va?".intern. The empty string must be a special case..

> As for returning a method object... since we don't have 1st class
> access to method dictionaries and the like, I don't see the value in
> returning a method instance. First, it'll be a copy of the real
> method, so it'll expend memory that in a lot of cases is simple
> bloat. Last time I counted, rails had roughly 500 requires and who
> knows how many methods defined... Imagine if they all created copies
> of themselves.

Why is it that we can't access to the method definition directly again
? Something like : "def x; end.private #=> <OriginalMethod:0x...
private>" could be sweet :)

-- 
Cheers,
  zimbatm