From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-12-30T00:58:12+09:00
Subject: Re: override.rb

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Trans wrote:

> sure, it makes sense, but you do have that possibility. and i agree
> it's not such a big deal. just pointing it out. i also point out that
> the idea of override.rb is but a step from the idea of cuts. in fact
> implementation of overide using cuts is little more than:
>
>  def override &block
>    Cut.new(self,&block)
>  end
>
> and my hacked-up pure ruby implementation of cuts is very similar in
> design that of override.rb.

i confess cuts are a bit heavyweight for my tastes.  however - i aggree that
the effect and even the impl to some respects is very similar.

> moving slightly off-topic. have you ever thought about the possibility
> of every method being as if it were it's own module?
>
>  class X
>
>    module A
>      def a; "a"; end
>    end
>    include A
>
>    module B
>      def b; "b"; end
>    end
>    include B
>
>  end

yes.  about 1 hour ago!  ;-)

> the ablity to dynamically manipulate behavior goes way up.
>
>  class X
>    module A2
>      def a; '{'+super+'}'; end
>    end
>    include A2
>  end
>
> of course so does the overhead. (and the dynamic inclusion problem still
> lurks in the background).

indeed.

no you've done it - my new project is in the works!

more later....

-a
-- 
if you find yourself slandering anybody, first imagine that your mouth is
filled with excrement.  it will break you of the habit quickly enough. - the
dalai lama