From: James Gray <james@...>
Date: 2008-01-04T23:19:31+09:00
Subject: Re: BasicObject.instance_eval

On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:25 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: BasicObject.instance_eval"
>    on Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:06:06 +0900, Sam Ruby  
> <rubys@intertwingly.net> writes:
>
> |I'm looking at converting some code over from BlankSlate to  
> BasicObject,
> |but hit a roadblock: I can't figure out any way to do the  
> equivalent of
> |
> |class Foo < BlankSlate
> |   def initialize
> |     @secret = 99
> |   end
> |end
> |
> |foo = Foo.new
> |foo.instance_eval {@secret}
> |
> |Any suggestions?
>
> Hmm, that's tough question.  Since BasicObject should not have as few
> methods as possible to do the method_missing trick, instance_eval is
> not among one of few methods it has.
>
> Currently, it has ==, equal? !, !=, __send__, method_missing,
> singleton_method_added, singleton_method_removed, and
> singleton_method_undefined.  Should we add instance_eval as well?

I feel like instance_eval() is a pretty basic Ruby method and thus  
valuable to have in BasicObject.  I also feel like there's not much  
danger that it will conflict with an intent to catch an  
"instance_eval" message in method_missing().

James Edward Gray II