From: Daniel Brockman <daniel@...>
Date: 2005-07-18T02:20:16+09:00
Subject: Re: `not' in parameter lists

We could always do this:

   class Negator
     instance_methods.each { |x| undef_method x if x[-1] == ?? }
     def initialize object
       @object = object end
     def method_missing name, *args, &block
       name.to_s[-1] == ?? or super
       not @object.__send__ name, *args, &block end end
   
   class Object
     def not
       @__negator__ ||= Negator.new self end
     alias_method :does_not, :not
     alias_method :do_not, :not end

   assert pet_class.ancestors.do_not.include?(Monster)
   @pet = pet_class.new
   assert @pet.does_not.respond_to?(:roar!)
   3.times { @pet.feed Apple.new }
   assert @pet.not.hungry?

(Finally a context in which the name ‘respond_to?’ sounds right.)

It would be nice to be able to get rid of those pesky parens, though:

   assert pet_class.ancestors.do_not.include? Monster
   assert @pet.does_not.respond_to? :roar!

Is there any word on the chances of this becoming allowed in the future?
I mean, is it definitely ruled out, or is there room for persuation?

-- 
Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>

    So really, we all have to ask ourselves:
    Am I waiting for RMS to do this?   --TTN.