From: hemant <gethemant@...>
Date: 2007-12-19T20:18:36+09:00
Subject: Re: [Rhetoric] Two feature requests for safer Ruby Programming

On Dec 19, 2007 4:03 PM, Sylvain Joyeux
<sylvain.joyeux@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> >     Above code is going to blow. Why? because request is a method
> > defined by ActionPack.
> >     What can we do to prevent this? or this guy is simply dumb and
> > should stop programming?
> No. Local variables have higher precedence than method invocation. The
> code works as expected (i.e. 'request' is the local variable, not the
> method call).
>

Hmm, I wasn't aware of this. But in spite of this, I have seen issues
because of this.
Above code works, no doubt. I will try to reproduce the situation
where it truly creates problem.


> >   In my opinion, when unintended override of a method happens, Ruby
> > should throw a warning. To silent that warning, one should explicitly
> > say you are
> >   overriding a method.
> See the -w flag
>
> [~]% cat test.rb
> class WarningAlreadyExists
>     def bla
>     end
> end
>
>
> class WarningAlreadyExists
>     def bla
>     end
> end
>
> [~]% ruby -w test.rb
> test.rb:10: warning: method redefined; discarding old bla


I was aware of this, but what I also meant was:

class WarningAlreadyExists
  def bla
  end
end


class Foo < WarningAlreadyExists
  def bla
  end
end

Doesn't give any warnings, even with warning flag on.


-- 
Let them talk of their oriental summer climes of everlasting
conservatories; give me the privilege of making my own summer with my
own coals.

http://gnufied.org