[#4595] New block syntax — Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang@...>

I'm really sorry if this isn't the place to talk about this. I've

25 messages 2005/03/21
[#4606] Re: New block syntax — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/03/21

Hi --

[#4629] Re: New block syntax — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/03/30

On Monday 21 March 2005 16:17, David A. Black wrote:

[#4648] about REXML::Encoding — speakillof <speakillof@...>

Hi.

15 messages 2005/03/31
[#4659] Re: about REXML::Encoding — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/04/04

On Thursday 31 March 2005 09:44, speakillof wrote:

Re: want_object? - possible?

From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-03-25 01:45:01 UTC
List: ruby-core #4620
Hi --

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Daniel Berger wrote:

> Keep in mind that some of the contexts mentioned there
> do not apply to Ruby, e.g. lvalue subs.  In fact, most
> may not.  But, if there were some way for a method to
> detect whether it's part of a chain in advance, that
> might be useful.

I don't think there is a way, logically, within the basic
message-receiver-response model.  The idea of an object knowing what
is going to happen after it finishes responding to the message seems,
to me, to be part of a pretty deeply different design.  At that point,
also, you're not really chaining method calls; you're using
method-chaining syntax to execute something that's really not linear
from left to right.  At that point, the a.b.c syntax starts to obscure
what's really happening, rather than revealing it, I think.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net

In This Thread