From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-10-06T23:20:38+09:00
Subject: Re: foo= ... the only exception to the implicit-self rule ?

Hi --

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

> On Oct 6, 2005, at 8:51 AM, Gavin Kistner wrote:
>
>> On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:31 AM, itsme213 wrote:
>> 
>>> I guess a set_x(val) is the other alternative. Not sure which I dislike 
>>> more
>>> :-(
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm amazed that you find either the above or foo(x) more appealing than 
>> simply using self.foo = x. In my personal opinion, the assignment is clear, 
>> and made clearer by the presence of 'self'.
>
> [snip]
>
>> But...really, I'm reasonably happy with the way things are now.
>
> I believe I have only ever run into this problem when using instance_eval(). 
> Is it more pervasive than that?

It's always the case that

   bareword = <anything>

is parsed as a local variable assignment, not a method call.  It's
really not a big deal, though -- it's a small price to pay for all the
times we don't have to use an explicit 'self' receiver.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net