From: Daniel Nugent <nugend@...>
Date: 2006-02-08T23:18:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Meta-Meta-Programming

So, just for clarifications sake: Both the presented wrapping method
and the cut library used earlier are implementations (generic uses?)
of Aspect Oriented Programming, right?

Nothing *more* than that going on, correct?

Vidar, I think the question there is: Should I rely on a type/method
check to ensure that I don't get bad parameters or should I just write
some tests to make sure that the code in question fails in a sensible
way when those expectations aren't met. Those would be edge cases
after all, and you'd have to write the tests for them anyway.

To me, it seems to be unDRY...

Except if you were using it to enhance performance through typing
related optimizations.

On 2/8/06, Erik Veenstra <google@erikveen.dds.nl> wrote:
> Did I mention that it is possible to double-wrap a method with
> two or more monitor-functions? The order in which they are
> executed is down-up:
>
>  class Foo
>    def bar(x, y, z)
>      # x should be Numeric
>      # y should be a String
>      # z should respond to :to_s and :gsub
>    end
>    typed    :bar, Numeric, String, [:to_s, :gsub]
>    log_args :bar
>  end
>
> gegroet,
> Erik V. - http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/
>
>
>


--
-Dan Nugent