From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2006-05-02T07:42:18+09:00
Subject: Re: from block to code (also: how to get the bindings of a block)

On May 1, 2006, at 12:50 PM, chiaro scuro wrote:

> On 5/1/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I would normally agree with you, but this is not a design problem
>> > or a domain-conceptualization problem.
>>
>> I doubt your problem is really that special.
>
>
> it's special in respect to the fact that goes against the  
> boundaries of the
> language, so it cannot necessarily rely on beautiful 'natural'  
> constructs
> that apply within the conceptual boundaries of the language.
>
>
>> It's a language-twisting problem that imposes otherwise unimportant
>> > constraints on what I can and cannot do.
>>
>> If you're doing something this ugly you're probably doing something
>> very wrong.
>>
>
> Eric, how would you do it?
>
> recipe "breakfast" do
>  eggs = 2, :big
>  bacon = 3
> end
>
> this should add to a global hash (or return directly) the following:
>
> {
>  :eggs => [2,:big],
>  :bacon => [3]
> }

def recipe(name, &block)
   o = Object.new
   o.instance_variable_set :@attrs, {}
   def o.method_missing(name, *args)
     name = name.to_s.sub(/add_/, '').intern
     @attrs[name] = args
   end
   o.instance_eval &block
   return o.instance_variable_get(:@attrs)
end

ingredients = recipe 'breakfast' do
   add_eggs 2, :big
   add_bacon 3
end

p ingredients

> I need to keep the equal signs.

Why?

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com