From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2008-03-23T20:19:54+09:00
Subject: Re: #meta

On 22.03.2008 20:21, Trans wrote:
> On Mar 22, 9:39 am, Robert Klemme <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I am feeling stupid because I seem to overlook something: what is the
>> advantage of your approach vs.
>>
>> class Object
>>    def meta
>>      class<<self;self;end
>>    end
>> end
>>
>> ?  As far as I can see your functor in this case simply delegates all
>> method invocations to the singleton class.  Why not directly use /
>> return it?
> 
> Try it:
> 
>>> class X
>>>   meta.attr_accessor
>>> end
> NoMethodError: private method `attr_accessor' called for #<Class:X>
>         from (irb):7

So then the only (?) advantage of your proposal is that you can use 
private methods like ordinary methods.

> There's no need for meta at all, you could just use "class << self"
> directly,

True enough.   And "class << self ... end" is not as ugly as "class 
<<self;self;end" for getting at the instance itself.

> But just as some people prefer to use "def self.foo", it's nice to use
> module level methods like #class_attr_accessor.  That's were #meta
> comes in as generalized form rather than defining class level
> equivalents for all possible methods.

I see.  Thanks for the enlightenment.

Kind regards

	robert