From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-09-28T21:19:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Best name for "this method" ?


"trans. (T. Onoma)" <transami@runbox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:200409280805.07778.transami@runbox.com...
> On Tuesday 28 September 2004 05:44 am, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> > There are two possible factorings.  Have Object#methods return a
> > specialised object, thus:
> >
> >   foo.methods.private
> >   foo.methods.all
> >   foo.methods.new
> >   foo.methods.singleton
> >   foo.methods[:new, :protected]   # if you need combination
> >   # etc.
>
> For this approach, I think combinations would be better like:
>
>   foo.methods { |m| m.private | m.singleton }
>   foo.methods { |m| m.private + m.public }
>
> But I think it might be a bit much to have a whole new class for this.
>
> Sometimes I really wish symbolic keyed hashes were accessable like
object
> methods:
>
>    h = { a: 1, b: 2 }
>    h.a  #=> 1
>    h.b  #=> 2

You mean like this:

>> s=SymHash.new.update( :a=>2, :b=>3 )
=> {:a=>2, :b=>3}
>> s.a
=> 2
>> s.c
=> nil
>> s.b
=> 3
>> s.c=100
=> 100
>> s
=> {:a=>2, :b=>3, :c=>100}

class SymHash < Hash
  def method_missing(sym,*args)
    key = sym.to_s.sub!(/=$/, '')
    if key
      self[key.to_sym]=args[0]
    else
      self[sym]
    end
  end
end

> That would be sweet. And would make the above possible without a new
class. I
> know, method name clash is bad --and there's little one can do to get
around
> it. Perhaps alternate notation?

I'd rather not have another separator - "." and "::" is enough IMHO.

>    h:a
>    h:b
>
> But I digress.

I guess so. :-)  But sometimes good ideas come from this.

Regards

    robert