From: Mc Osten <riko@...>
Date: 2006-03-02T05:38:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Dynamic stuff and books

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 22:29:17 +0900, Ross Bamford wrote:


> I don't consider metaprogramming bad style, and I think it's a fairly
> well-used practice over here. It is potentially very dangerous, and can
> easily be misused (and overused) with really hard-to-debug results, but
> just as a butcher works better with sharp knives, sometimes so do we.
> Generally I'd advise metaprogramming be used only when no other
> 'standard' technique can do the job, or would be so inelegant as to be
> pointless.

Ok. That's pretty much the same advise I give when someone asks me the same
about Python. Good, this is not something to be included in the context
switch.

> Because they're defined on Object, they are available everywhere (in the
> context of any 'self'). And because they're private, they can only be
> called with the implicit 'self', so they act like functions.

Ok. Quite makes sense. In the first instance I didn't realize Ruby hasn't
got "just functions". Luckily enough I can use them as regular functions (I
was thinking about the funny integralism of one famous language).

Many thanks, you helped me a lot to clarify some obscure points I had.


-- 
USB Priests for only 10$