From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-05-28T18:20:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Tricky problem with ===

On 27.05.2007 15:23, Erwin Abbott wrote:
> On 5/27/07, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> Viewing this more abstract: maybe case isn't even the right thing to do.
>>   We would have to know more about what the OP is trying to accomplish.
> 
> Well the idea is to wrap an object with this proxy class and not mess
> up any code that doesn't know about it... it should seem completely
> transparent. It gives you a separate namespace for methods and
> instance variables, so you don't have to worry about redefining those
> with a mixin or singleton method, but you can still specialize some
> object by wrapping it.

Yes, you said so earlier.  But what business problem are you trying to 
solve?

>> I think using case statements to distinguish the class of an object is
>> kind of ugly under any circumstances.
> 
> I think it works pretty well, but I'd like to know what you prefer
> instead. I realize distinguishing objects by class is not encouraged,
> but I find myself needing it often, for better or worse.
> 
>> On an even more general level there is a certain contradiction between
>> having something behave exactly like an Array - but also different... :-)
> 
> Yes, that's a good observation.  Though I'm very happy with how close
> I've gotten to making it happen.

The problem is that it seems to be a fine line between coming close and 
breaking. :-)  I'd also consider mixins or other mechanisms.  It all 
depends on what problem you are trying to solve...

Kind regards

	robert