[#4858] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — noreply@...

Bugs item #1883, was opened at 2005-05-06 14:55

21 messages 2005/05/06
[#4862] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/05/07

Hi,

[#4865] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2005/05/07

[#4868] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — nobu.nokada@... 2005/05/07

Hi,

[#5053] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2005/05/19

Hi,

[#5056] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-1883 ] Build fails on OSX Tiger 10.4 — Mark Hubbart <discordantus@...> 2005/05/19

On 5/19/05, Shugo Maeda <shugo@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#4874] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>

Hello all,

31 messages 2005/05/10
[#4879] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Pit Capitain <pit@...> 2005/05/11

Ilias Lazaridis schrieb:

[#4883] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...> 2005/05/12

Pit Capitain wrote:

[#4884] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...> 2005/05/12

[#4888] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...> 2005/05/12

Ryan Davis wrote:

[#4889] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — ES <ruby-ml@...> 2005/05/12

[#4890] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...> 2005/05/12

ES wrote:

[#4891] Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal — Alexander Kellett <ruby-lists@...> 2005/05/12

On May 12, 2005, at 3:13 PM, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

[#4911] Pointless argc check in Array#select — noreply@...

Patches item #1900, was opened at 2005-05-12 09:33

11 messages 2005/05/12

[#4919] - Hierarchical/Modular Directory Structure — Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>

The source-code structure should be simplified, lowering barriers for

20 messages 2005/05/12

Re: Method hooks in singleton classes

From: Pit Capitain <pit@...>
Date: 2005-05-09 07:11:04 UTC
List: ruby-core #4870
Hi Matz, Nobu and Florian,

thank you all for your replies.


Nobu wrote:
> What will you need if method_added is redefined too?

As Florian answered already, this would invoke singleton_method_added, 
as it does today. You had to redefine both singleton_method_added and 
the singleton class' method added at the same time.


Matz wrote:
> In that case, we have to decide to make "metaclass" in the language
> specification.  See [ruby-talk:139309].

Ah, I see. You can implement singleton methods without having singleton 
classes in the language, as you often had mentioned. But currently it 
*is* possible to access singleton classes, and they *are* class objects. 
They are special classes in the sense that you can't instanciate them, 
but I don't see why they should be even more special by removing 
method_added et al. And I don't feel that adding this behavior would 
make singleton classes more present in the language than they are today. 
But of course this is only *my* feeling.

> I'm not sure it's the solution.  We sometimes want to avoid
> redefinition.  Something like "around" method in CLOS might help.

This is exactly what I'm trying to implement. I want to reliably add 
before, after or around methods and keep them when redefining a method. 
I know that something like this will come with Ruby 2, but I'd like to 
have it sooner.

Regards,
Pit

In This Thread

Prev Next