From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-08-31T15:03:32+09:00
Subject: Re: python-style decorators

On 8/30/07, Keith Rarick <kr@essembly.com> wrote:
> On 8/30/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  Cool. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
>
> Well, I've hit a snag as a result of two properties of ruby:
>
> 1. If you write "def foo.bar() end", bar is guaranteed to be a
> singleton method on something regardless of the value of foo. (You can
> verify this on lines 1695-1709 of parse.y and lines 3919-3950 of
> eval.c.)
>
> 2. An unbound method (such as what you get by calling
> foo.method(:bar).unbind) can only be bound to an object of the same
> type as the original receiver. For singleton methods, this means that
> they can only be bound to the very same object.
Hmm that is why I put my defs into modules, even one module per
method, than I just use the module instead of the method, but honestly
your original code is just great if you adapt to the
decorator do
end
idiom you could potentially create a new Module from the block and
work with it, but I am not sure what that would be good for, are you
not looking for over-perfection here ;)?
> If only there were some way to get the body of an unbound method as a
> string
But there is, oops that is Squeak, not Ruby :(
> I could eval it again in the appropriate context. Short of
> that, I see no way to make this notation work.
>
> kr
>
>
Cheers
Robert

-- 
I'm an atheist and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know
except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for
other people.
-- Katharine Hepburn