From: Masaki Suketa <masaki.suketa@...>
Date: 2006-10-01T06:59:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Enumerable and WIN32OLE

Hello,
In message "Re: Enumerable and WIN32OLE"
    on 06/10/01, Dave Burt <dave@burt.id.au> writes:

> > Some Enumerable's methods does not need a block, for example, Enumerable#max.
> > So, I hesitate to implement your idea.
> > (I am not sure that there are OLE methods whose name is "max".)
> 
> I had an earlier version of the code I posted that went through
> Enumerable.instance_methods but skipped specific methods that don't need
> blocks (min, max, to_a, entries, grep, sort, zip, /enum_.*/, /.*\?$/).
> You can probably dismiss this option as well as what I wrote, just for
> being so inconsistent. I don't prefer this option, but I think it does
> strike a valuable balance between POLS and compatibility.

I think I understand your code skip the methods that don't need
blocks.
But, for example, if there is an OLE methods whose name is "max",
then, I am afraid that we might have the same problem.
Which method does the following code call (in your posted code)? 
OLE method max or Enumerable#max?

  ole = WIN32OLE.new(...)
  ole.max 

Do I misunderstand you?

> Looking at where String's going in Ruby (apparently becoming
> non-Enumerable in 1.9) another option could be to leave Enumerable out
> of WIN32OLE itself, but provide an enum method to return an enumerator
> object:
> 
> class WIN32OLE
>   def enum
>     Enumerable::Enumerator.new(self)
>   end
> end

Hmm, please give me some time to investigate it.
(If there is OLE "enum" method, I think we might have the same problem ...)

  Regards,
  Masaki Suketa