From: "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...>
Date: 2007-08-01T02:48:32+09:00
Subject: Re: redefining methods


On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:27 AM, dohzya wrote:

> Le mardi 31 juillet 2007 � 23:48 +0900, ara.t.howard a �crit :
>> i was playing with this last night, thought some here might be
>> interested:
>>
>>    http://drawohara.tumblr.com/post/7241442
>>
>> cheers.
>>
>> a @ http://drawohara.com/
>> --
>> we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being
>> better. simply reflect on that.
>> h.h. the 14th dalai lama
>
> Just for the syntax, I don't like :
> ---
> redefining :foo do
>   def foo(*a, &b) super.reverse end
> end
> ---
> I prefer :
> ---
> redefining :foo do |*a, &b|
>   super.reverse
> end
> ---
> Greater, it isn't ?

absolutely.  and when define_method takes a block that would indeed  
by the way to do it.

> ---
>
> However, there is an other way :
> ---
> redefining :foo do |&old| # &old or old, see after
>   def foo(*a, &b) old.call.reverse end
> end
> ---

this can't work though - old is not in scope inside foo - only with  
define_method would that be possible, but there you lose the ability  
to define methods which themselves take blocks...

> and maybe...
> ---
> redefining :foo do |*olds| # list, ordered (asc or desc ?)
>   def foo(*a, &b) (olds.shift.call + olds.shift.call).reverse end
>   # maybe add a shortcut for shift.call...
> end
> ---

again - same issue with scoping.  although i agree and more closure  
based solution would be nice.  for now though - i don't think it's  
possible.  i'd be very happy to be proven wrong though!  ;-)

kind regards.

a @ http://drawohara.com/
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being  
better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama