[ruby-talk:01086] Re: YADQ (Yet Another Dumb Question)

[e-mail] (GOTO Kentaro) writes:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:01083] YADQ (Yet Another Dumb Question)"
>     on 00/01/10, Dave Thomas <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> >Why don't I get a warning for this (at either global scope or within a 
> >class definition)?
> >
> >   A = 1
> >   A = 2
> 
> You are using ruby 1.5?

Indeed I am.

> Several months ago, Matz said that `constant' may be renamed to
> `shared variable' or other name in the future.  I need a sort of
> variable which cannot be redefined and I object to lack of `constant'
> but I have not sent comments yet :-<

We'll it seems to me that we already have a mechanism for class
variables:

     class Dave
       AVAL = [0]
     end

     def Dave.aClassVariable= (val)
       Dave::AVAL[0] = val
     end

     def Dave.aClassVariable
       Dave::AVAL[0]
     end


I suspect this could be wrapped with a 'cattr' method in Class.

However, if this change sticks, we'll lose the ability to have
immutable variables, which seems like a big loss.

So, I'd vote for retaining the old semantics of constants.

Regards


Dave


ps:

When I tried my example, I found another difference between method
names starting with upper and lower case characters:


   def Dave.A=(val)  parse error

   def Dave.a=(val)  OK