From: Richard Turner <richard@...>
Date: 2005-01-22T00:23:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Refernce objects

On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 00:12 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> Yes, but less Javaish and more Rubyish.  ;)  We're not a wordy bunch 
> and [] is our standard accessor, say you convey the same information, 
> but type less.
> 
Fair enough :)  I'd shy away from it because to me (at least, at the
moment), it seems to imply enumeration.  I'd be tempted to assume that
Section[] would 'fill' from index 0 so that, if there are any Sections,
there will certainly be Section[0].  Since the parameter is an ID, not
an index, it doesn't seem right.

On the other hand, Section{} sits fine in my head, since there's no
implied order there :)
> 
> class Selection
> 	private_class_method :new
> 
> 	def self.[]( id )
> 		Section.new(
> 			# whatever...
> 		)
> 	end
> end
> 
> That help?
> 
> James Edward Gray II
> 

Perfect!  Thanks.  I'd just stumbled onto the idea of

class Section
  class <<self
    private :new
  end
  .
  .
  .
end

So I'm glad I'm starting to think in the right direction.  I think I
have it now.

Thanks for your help folks!

Richard.