From: Sean O'Halpin <sean.ohalpin@...>
Date: 2005-10-18T07:04:42+09:00
Subject: Re: declaratively caching results of a method

On 10/17/05, Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/05, Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm debating between this suggestion and Pit's (where you access the cache via
> > it's name and as an instance method).  I dunno - what do people prefer?
> >
> > This one is certainly simpler :)
>
> I prefer Pit's. Otherwise you'll have to hang on to each cache
> yourself (should you memoize several methods), instead of just letting
> the class do it.
>
> Ryan

Agreed. Pit's is better (even if more complicated ;)

Sean