From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-11-25T16:17:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Generalizing and Organizing Code

On Tuesday 23 November 2004 10:33 am, Robert Klemme wrote:
| I'd keep the option to put state in there, because you might need it some
| time.

Good point.

| > yet there is only ever one of
| > each, so they aren't classes.
|
| But you can make them classes nevertheless.

True.

| If I'd strive for the most OO solution I'd do this:
|
| class Parser
|   class BaseProc
|     def self.children() @children ||= [] end
|     def self.inherited(cl) self.children << cl end
|
|     attr_accessor :parent
|
[snip]
|
|   BaseProc.children.each do |cl|
|     define_method(cl.name.downcase.gsub(/^.*::/, '')) { @handlers[cl] }
|   end
|
|
|   attr_accessor :document_stack
|   attr_reader :section, :paragraph
|
|   def initialize
|     @handlers = Hash.new {|h,k| h[k]=k.new(self)}
|   end
|
| end

Took me a few minutes to get this one. I've never used Hash block form of 
instantiation before. The use of parent is also quite insightful. So I ended 
up doing it in part as you suggest, with a bit of David's solution mixed in 
too, and my own of course. I'm still not perfectly satisfied but it's 
definitely improving.

Thanks and Happy Givings as well,
T.