From: Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkmann@...>
Date: 2006-04-11T03:13:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Quick syntax question

On 4/10/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/10/06, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+ruby@anthropohedron.net> wrote:
> > Consider the following three class definitions:
> >
> > class Foo
> >   def self.bar
> >     @@bar
> >   end
> >   def self.bar=(val)
> >     @@bar = val
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > class Foo
> >   class << self
> >     def bar
> >       @@bar
> >     end
> >     def bar=(val)
> >       @@bar = val
> >     end
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > class Foo
> >   class << self
> >     attr_accessor :bar
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > Am I correct in believing that they are equivalent? If not, how do they
> > differ?
>
> They are not equivalent. The first two are the same,

That's good to know. I can't see any reason to prefer the second over
the first. It's a lot more noisy.

> but the third
> will be accessing @bar, not @@bar. (Try it in IRB and you'll see.)

--
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.