From: William Morgan <wmorgan-ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2005-02-15T00:01:44+09:00
Subject: Re: can anyone verify this code as correct?

Hi,

>  foo = choices(1..100)
>  bar = choices(1..100) 
>  condition(lambda{foo == (bar * 3)})
>  condition(lambda{bar > 10})
>  condition(lambda{(bar % 2) == 0})

Cute! Some comments:

>   def condition(cond)
>     return if (self.class == NilClass?)
>     @@cont.pop.call if !cond.call
>   end

More idiomatic usage would be to take a block here, rather than
requiring an explicit lambda. Then calling it looks like:

  condition { foo == bar * 3 }

Also, you can drop the "class Object" declaration if you like, as
top-level methods are automatically defined in Object. Or, move
everything to a new class (even better).

The real problem, though, is here:

>   class NilClass?
>    def method_missing(methId, *args)
>       return false
>    end
>  end

Which has high potential to break existing code, or at least make
debugging very difficult. I haven't thought this through thoroughly, but
rather than returning nil, maybe you can jump to another continuation?

Interesting idea, at any rate. The code is correct, though you have to
drop the ? in NilClass?.

-- 
William <wmorgan-ruby-talk@masanjin.net>