From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-11-17T10:26:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Proposed RCR: Object#replace

On 11/16/05, Ara.T.Howard <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > does. Yes, I think it should be that restrictive -- exact match only.  This
> > isn't #become, it's #replace. This isn't typecasting, it's replacing the
> > internals of one object with those of another object OF THE EXACT SAME KIND.
> > (Granted, singleton objects tend to confuse things, but this is closer to
> > the behaviour of #dup than of #clone.) The behaviour for this is relatively
> > well-established by the #replace implementations on the internal objects
> > Array, Hash, and String.
> i like the idea.  why not make it more generic and have semantics for a
>
>    class Object
>      def reinitialize other = self
>        ...
>      end
>    end
>
> paradigm/hook.  a copy ctor sort of thing.

It's not really a reinitialization. It's *almost* #become -- but not
quite. As I said, look at Transaction::Simple for the use case that I
have.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca