From: Erik Veenstra <erikveen@...>
Date: 2006-07-24T00:06:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Meta-Meta-Programming, revisited

> I see. But |*args| does work just so long as you don't want
> to _change the args_, doesn't it?

It's possible (not tested) to change the members of *args, but
not *args itself.

> > > I'll have to look at the Object abuse again and get back
> > > to you.
>
> So you're confining the context of excution, shutting out the
> defining closure. Correct? It seems reasonable, though
> couldn't one do that on their own if they wanted? Eg.
>
>     class Foo < Struct.new(:aa, :bbb)
>       post_condition(:initialize) do
>         instance_eval do

Doesn't work. You should have passed the object (the receiver
of instance_eval) to the block. Which doesn't work nicely in
combination with *args...

> These parameter "abuses" certainly make particular uses more
> succinct, but on the downside, they are more syntax to learn,
> as opposed to being able to draw upon what one already knows
> about Ruby.

True. There's a lot of context switching below the surface.
wrap_method and *_condition should take care of that. By
default, the given block should behave as expected: It has its
own context, as in plain Ruby. But you _could_ execute it in
the context of the object (by passing Object).

We can get rid of the abuse of Array, but it's just more common
to see |*args| then |args|.

What about this?: We could remove both abuses by passing both
the arguments and the object: |args, obj|. Or even this: |args,
block, obj|. (Which drags block into the game...)

gegroet,
Erik V. - http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/