From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-09-29T07:31:29+09:00
Subject: Re: Best name for "this method" ?

Hi --

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:

> On Tuesday 28 September 2004 05:27 pm, David A. Black wrote:
> > Hi --
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:
> 
> > > And then I start to wonder why we can't just use the class name like a
> > > method?
> > >
> > >   Hash(:a=>1, :b=>2)
> >
> > You can define such methods; for example, there's Integer.  A number
> > of people (including me :-) aren't big fans of method names that begin
> > with uppercase letters, but it can be done.
> 
> Right. Well then, I must propose that all such class names be constructor 
> methods too. No sense in confusing things otherwise. By default:
> 
>   def AClass(*args, &blk)
>     AClass.new(*args, &blk)
>   end

I'm not getting the point of that.  Why do you need a wrapper like
that around new?  Also, the one somewhat common case of this --
Integer -- isn't a wrapper for new, since there is no Integer.new.  So
you'd be introducing a constraint that currently doesn't exist.  

> But for something like Hash, it would be defined like Hash[].

What is "something like Hash" in this context?  I'm not following
here.  


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net