From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-05-02T06:30:46+09:00
Subject: Re: from block to code (also: how to get the bindings of a block)

On Tue, 2 May 2006, chiaro scuro wrote:

> On 5/1/06, Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 5/1/06, chiaro scuro <kiaroskuro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I need to keep the equal signs.
>> 
>> This is my big question; why do you need the equal signs? I see
>> nothing inherent about the "recipe" domain that makes the equal signs
>> necessary or even desirable. If you were willing to ditch them, a
>> whole slew of simpler and cleaner implementations are available.
>> 
>> Jacob Fugal
>> 
>> 
> I realize that would make it much easier in ruby.
> It's just that the equal signs make lots of sense to my DSL users. (forget
> the recipes, it's just an example)
>
> Look, it's not a matter of life or death.  *of course* I can do without if
> there is no alternative.
> (eventually I did find a solution to this -although it's a cheesy one- but I
> am not saying yet ;-)
>
> It just bothers me that I cannot access that context if I need to, and in
> this case I do.

it would be tough to convince me that people wouldn't find this syntax
natural:

   harp:~ > cat a.rb
   class Recipe < Hash
     attr 'name'
     def initialize name, &b
       @name = name
       instance_eval &b
     end
     def method_missing m, *a, &b
       m = m.to_s.delete '='
       self[m] = a.size > 1 ? a : a.shift
     end
   end
   def recipe(*a, &b) Recipe.new(*a, &b) end



   r =
     recipe "breakfast" do
       eggs 2, :big
       bacon 3
     end

   p r


   harp:~ > ruby a.rb


   {"bacon"=>3, "eggs"=>[2, :big]}


for example, write down a recipe and see if you use the '=' sign ;-)

regards.

-a
-- 
be kind whenever possible... it is always possible.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama