From: Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>
Date: 2005-10-22T04:32:27+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] Cut-based AOP

--- Peter Vanbroekhoven <calamitates@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The syntax is not consistent:
> >
> >        class B                meta-class of b
> >        -------                ---------------
> > reopen  class      B ... end   class <<b ... end
> > cut     cut Bcut < B ... end   cut   <<b ... end
> 
> Well, for the moment the patch does not allow this (I'm not
> claiming the 
> patch is perfect, or even does all that we want it to do),
> but the full 
> comparison would be this:
> 
> open      class B < A ... end     class <<b ... end
> cut       cut   B < A ... end     cut   <<b ... end
> 
> reopen    class B     ... end     class <<b ... end
> 'recut'   cut   B     ... end     cut   <<b ... end
> 
> open'     class B     ... end
> cut'      cut   B     ... end
> 
> This seems consistent enough to me.
> 
> What I've always found a pity though, is that the meta-class
> declaratiopn 
> does not allow naming the meta-class, maybe like this:
> 
>    class Meta_b << b ; end

You are starting to touch on the inconsistency by asking for
the meta_class to be named like other classes are.

                modifies
                --------
class A < B     A
cut   A < B     A, B
class <<b       b.meta_class
cut   <<b       b.meta_class
class A         A
cut   A         A, B ??

The meta_class vs. normal forms just don't seem consistent.

I have another idea that can be implemented in pure ruby using
flgr's 'evil.rb'.  I'll send out another message about it.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com