From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2007-09-01T07:05:43+09:00
Subject: Re: python-style decorators



On Aug 31, 11:27 am, "Keith Rarick" <k...@essembly.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However, even though I think such a change is a good thing to pursue
>
> That sounds good to me. It would easily solve this problem and make
> many other things possible.
>
> > (I'm even tempted to revive Suby just to offer this one distinct
> > feature), I offer this:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Honestly, I half-expect I'm delusional, b/c I'm not sure how this
> > manges to work, but it seems to do so. Maybe you can use it as a
> > jumping board.
>
> That almost works! See why:
>
> class X
>
>   class Foo
>
>     def initialize(klass)
>       @klass = klass
>       @x = 5
>     end
>
>     def singleton_method_added(meth)
>       return if meth == :singleton_method_added
>       m = method(meth)
>       @klass.send(:define_method, meth, m.to_proc)
>     end
>   end
>
>   def initialize
>     @x = 3
>   end
>
>   def self.fooized
>     @foo ||= Foo.new(self)
>   end
>
>   def fooized.try
>     10 + @x
>   end
>
> end
>
> p X.new.try
>
> If try were really bound to the instance of X, this would produce 13.
> But it produces 15.

Fudge Nuts! Well, I knew something was a miss. I know Ruby too well to
expect that to work ;)

And I don't think Pit Captain could even wrangle up a solution to this
one. Oh well. Guess it's back to the method_added or block notation.
Which is too bad, b/c not you have to make a choice between the
readability to the former and the reliability of the later.

T.