From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-11-16T21:43:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Shadowing bug??

2007/11/16, Vasco Andrade e Silva <vascoas@gmail.com>:
> Robert Klemme wrote:
> > 2007/11/15, Vasco Andrade e Silva <vascoas@gmail.com>:
> >> >> {:xpto=>"ohoh"} # :-)
> >> process of that computation you call "defn_to_sexp". This method
> >>     ...
> >> in both cases".
> >>   ...
> >> end
> >
> > IMHO you are abusing a lambda to get a nested method.  This likely
> > also has performance impacts since the block has to be recreated on
> > every invocation of the method.  In this case I'd rather use a private
> > helper method.
> >
> > But I can see how you would want to use the same identifier in some
> > cases.  I can only speak for myself: I did not feel the urge to do
> > this (yet).
>
> I think that has to do a lot with your "school".
> Have a try with it, i'm sure you'll love it after while :P

This is a melody that drastically increases the likelihood that I do
*not* do it because it is usually used by people that want my money.
:-))

From what I've seen so far I do not think I gain any advantages, so
sorry, I stick with my "old school". :-)

> Let me only add if you want performance in this case you could just do:
> @process_args ||= lambda do |node, has_block|
>     ... # i don't want to access to the outer node
>         # and "node" says more than "n"
>   end
>
> this is a very simple cache system ;)

Yes, and it has the drawback to at least potentially hold on to
objects longer than needed... :-)

Kind regards

robert


-- 
use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end