From: Jonas Pfenniger <zimba.tm@...>
Date: 2006-07-14T22:16:45+09:00
Subject: Re: About MyClass#my_method

On 14/07/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Jonas Pfenniger wrote:
> > I always see the # notation in the docs to design instance_methods.
> > Wouldn't it be nice to be able to use that notation to address and
> > access methods directly ?
> >
> > MyClass#my_method would replace MyClass.instance_method(:my_method)
> >
> > and
> >
> > def MyClass#my_method end would replace class MyClass; def my_method end end
>
> That syntax is already taken, for comments.

I know but other characters are used differently in various
circumstances. For example {} is for a hash or a block depending where
it is in the code.

I would really like that the dot notation would only be used for method calls.

> > Similarily, I was also thinking that :: could be used for class methods.
>
> I'd be glad to see :: for method *calls* disappear, but I doubt it
> will and therefore it's not available.  Also, both method names and
> constants can start with uppercase letters, which I think would make
> parsing this impossible.

Yeah this is a good argument. Actually, the edge case would be when
you have a method and a constant with the same name and that you want
to access to the method's instance. Like :

class Test end
def Test::LibPath; "." end
Test::LibPath = File.dirname(__FILE__)

Test::LibPath would always give the dirname of __FILE__. But in that
case you could use Test.method(:LibPath)

If you want to call that method, you would alread do Test.LibPath like
in the actual ruby implementation.

The def keywork would allow to make the distinction while parsing.

-- 
Cheers,
  zimbatm

http://zimbatm.oree.ch