From: transfire@...
Date: 2006-07-16T13:06:31+09:00
Subject: Save me from the method_missing

I'm find the the whole method_missing, privative clashing methods,
except essential ones, call send otherwise . . . is just a pain. The
whole thing is just to have that nice interface "obj.foo, obj.foo=x".
That might not seem like much but it really stand out in contrast:

  obj[:a][:b][:c]   -vs-   obj.a.b.c

So, dang, if that's all we want, some beauty in our code, and the whole
method_missing thing is  just too problematic why not just have another
means? Anuone having a look at Hpricot recently will note the
x/:a/:b/:c notation. No bad, that almost as nice. Okay, step back ...

I was thinking... soon we will become acustom to space significance
with the new Hash notation

  { x: :a }  !=  { x::a }

If we're gogin to be dealing with space significance here anyway, why
not go with it give us the ability to reusue ':'?

  class X < Hash

    # parameter is always a symbol

    def :(x)
      self[x]
    end

    def :=(x,y)
      self[x] = y
    end

    def x(n)
      n
    end

  end

  x = X
  x:y = 4
  x:y #=> 4
  x(:y) #=> :y
  x :y #=> :y

So then we can easily do

  obj:a:b:c

That's just about as nice. Of course the disadvantage is that it's not
very ducky --if you take my meaning. Of course, thinking about that,
one might be inclined to ask, why not just have a special Dispatcher
superclass?

  class MyClass < Dispatcher

    # only two methods allowed

    def .(x, *args, &blk)
      ...
    end

    def .=(x,y)
      ...
    end

  end

If only .... then I wouldn't be in so deep. Someone save me!

T.