From: Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>
Date: 2005-10-06T23:23:12+09:00
Subject: Re: foo= ... the only exception to the implicit-self rule ?

--- itsme213 <itsme213@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Have you decided whether 2.0 will require all local vars to
> be distinguished
> via some syntax (e.g. |...|), or will 2.0 continue the
> current special-case
> handling for self.foo= ?

This would really make ruby ugly.  One of the beauties about
ruby is that you don't have to declare your variables (type or
existance).  There are currently deficiencies in the
flexibility of variable scoping (only def/class/module can make
real local variables as far as I know), but I would hope that
could be solved without adding variable declarations.

Take a look at my RCR 307.  In this one, you can do this:

 obj.foo(arg1,arg2) = value

which would be equivalent to:

 obj.send(:foo=,arg1,arg2,value)

Well, there is no reason this RCR couldn't handle the no
receiver case:

 foo(arg1,arg2) = value

And the no receiver/no arg case:

 foo() = value

which would be equivalent to:

 self.foo = value

Just like the case when you already are using a local variable
"foo" where you use "foo()" to call the method foo, the same
can be done for assignment.

But, I think the self.foo=value syntax would still be preferred
by most.  I'm not sure why you dislike it so much to propose
making such radical changes.

We are also talking about inside the class, so you know the
implementation.  Unless foo= is complex, you might want to just
inline it whenever you want to use it (typically @foo=value). 
This will give you a performance boost since you are cutting
out a method call (runtime is probably dominated by the method
call mechanism in most cases).




		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com