From: Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>
Date: 2005-10-21T01:05:58+09:00
Subject: module-based AOP (was Re: [RCR] Cut-based AOP)

--- Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Matz,
> 
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 
> > I understand the basic idea.  How about introducing a new
> method
> > e.g. "preclude" that works to intercept the methods in the
> target
> > class/module, instead of cut.  It would be a counterpart of
> "include"
> > for mix-in.
> 
> Yes, this is in the RCR:
> 
> Additionally, Cuts exist in proxy form to allow modules to be
> "premixed". This is analogous to proxy classes which allow
> modules to
> mixin to the class hierarchy. So too does a proxy-cut include
> a module,
> albeit preclusive rather the inclusive in its effect. We
> offer the
> module command #preclude to serve as designator of this
> purpose.
> 
>   module A
>     def m ; "<#{super}>" ; end
>   end
>   Class T
>     preclude A
>     def m ; "okay" ; end
>   end
>   T.new.m  #=> "<okay>"

Trans/Peter,

What does a "cut" do that "preclude" doesn't?  It seems like
you still can manage the AOP methods through modules instead of
cuts.  And you can stack these.  Can you give a scenario where
"preclude" doesn't "cut" it :)

I still think something like "wrap" would be a better word. 
"preclude" may describe the inheritance hierarchy kind of, but
not the functionality from a user's perspective.



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/