From: "Mikael Høilund" <mikael@...>
Date: 2008-11-11T20:01:56+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:19818] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args

Allow me to throw in my ~.116892074 DKK;

I'm in favor of using a class for representing the parameter data.  
It'll allow for methods like allows?(some, arguments), which will tell  
you if calling the method with those arguments will throw an  
ArgumentError or not. This might, however, be better suited to be in  
the Method/UnboundMethod class.

It will also make handling of the returned object much prettier. I'd  
much rather see

method(:foo).parameters.names.include? :some_param

than

method(:foo).parameters.any? { |param| param.include? :some_param if  
param.kind_of? Array }

or however it would be represented. Similarly, what expresses what you  
want the most; `parameters.takes_block?` or `!parameters.last.nil?`?

I'm also in favor of supplying the default value. In far the most  
cases the default value is nil (in my experience), but not always.  
This means I'll have to look up the method (don't get me started on if  
the method is dynamically generated) just to pass an optional argument  
that follows another optional argument I don't want to change.

Default values, however, I can see becoming a bit of a hassle. Unless  
it's to be represented as a string of Ruby code, cases like `def foo  
bar, baz = "default-#{bar}"` will be quite difficult to express, let  
alone in a way that's easy and nice to handle.

Ultimately, I'd like to propose that the parameters method also be  
added to the Proc class.

-- 
# Mikael H�ilund
def method_missing(m, a=0) a +
m.to_s[/[a-z]+/].size * 2; end
p What is the meaning of life?