From: Brian Takita <brian.takita@...>
Date: 2005-12-15T16:52:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Dynamically adding methods to a Ruby class

------=_Part_1404_14770385.1134633131166
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello John,

This isn't quite as cool as a prototype, but here is another possible type
of solution:

class Dynamic
    attr_reader :dynamic_methods

    def initialize
        @dynamic_methods =3D Hash.new
    end

    alias alias_method_missing method_missing

    def method_missing(name, *args)
        unless @dynamic_methods.include?(name)
            alias_method_missing(name, *args)
            return
        end

        @dynamic_methods[name].call(*args)
    end
end

d =3D Dynamic.new

# You can also use Proc.new instead of lambda
d.dynamic_methods[:test] =3D lambda do |*args|
    puts 'test ' + args.to_s
end

d.test(1, 2)
# test 12

Of course you could add the method that you describe in your link:

d.dynamic_methods[:Count] =3D lambda do |*args|
  create_ruby_instance_method(self.class, 'Count') do
    include  'System.Collections'
    ldarg_2
    call     'static Marshal::ToClrObject(VALUE)'
    call     'ArrayList::get_Count()'
    call     'static Marshal::ToRubyNumber(Int32)'
    ret
  end
  self.Count
end

--
Brian Takita
http://freeopinion.org

On 12/14/05, Eero Saynatkari <ruby-forum-reg@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> John Lam wrote:
> > I just finished writing the first spike for my Ruby CLR bridge tonight,
> > and
> > I'm wondering if there might be a better (or more efficient) way to add
> > instance methods to a class object than this:
> >
> > class Module
> >   def const_missing(symbol)
> >     obj =3D Class.new
> >     obj.class_eval %{
> >       def initialize
> >         ...
> >       end
> >
> >       def method_missing(name, *params)
> >                ...
> >       end
> >     }
> >     const_set(symbol, obj)
> >   end
> > end
>
> Not really, except for using define_method (which has
> some limitations that would probably make it unsuitable
> for a #method_missing implementation). The 'Class methods'
> thread had pretty much this exact implementation..
>
> Perhaps some sort of a prototype-based approach?
>
> > Thanks,
> > -John
> > http://www.iunknown.com
> >
> > PS If you're wondering what the code in the ... blocks do, read my
> > write-up
> > of this code at:
> > http://www.iunknown.com/articles/2005/12/14/hello-rubyclr
>
>
> E
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>

------=_Part_1404_14770385.1134633131166--