From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-07-13T23:31:03+09:00
Subject: Re: prototype-0.1.0

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Paul Battley wrote:

> On 13/07/06, transfire@gmail.com <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The only thing I see, is that your use of the term 'prototype' betrays
>> a Class-based OOP background. Ie. You're usimg "prototype" as one would
>> "class" and "instantiate" them albiet via a deep clone. Using a neutral
>> term like 'object' does away with that.
>> 
>>   a = object{ a 1; b 2; c 3 }
>
> How about this:
>
> ---
>
> require 'prototype'
>
> def Prototype(&blk)
> return Prototype.new(&blk)
> end
>
> singleton = Prototype do
> @a, @b = 40, 2
>
> def answer() @a + @b end
> end
>
> p singleton.answer

the latest release has both 'Prototype' and 'prototype' methods.  both

   prototype{ a 42 }

and

   Prototype{ a 42 }

are now valid.

cheers.

-a
-- 
suffering increases your inner strength.  also, the wishing for suffering
makes the suffering disappear.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama