From: Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
Date: 2008-03-28T05:43:48+09:00
Subject: Re: pypes

Martin DeMello wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
>>  http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2007/12/pipelines-using.html
>>  http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2008/01/pipelines-using.html
> 
> Tangentially, why did the trick of defining methods with the same name
> as classes, to delegate to Class.new, fall out of favour?
> 
>     tripler          = Transformer.new {|val| val * 3}
> 
> would read more nicely as
> 
>     tripler          = Transformer {|val| val * 3}
> 
> with def Transformer(x); Transformer.new(x); end
> 
> I remember it being a commoner practice a few years ago.
> 
> martin

It looks like a typo when there is no method name after (what looks 
like) a constant name. There's also the cognitive load of deciding 
whether "Transformer.meth" is "send :meth to the result of method 
Transformer()" or "send :meth to the value of constant Transformer". My 
brain knows it is the latter, but my eyes don't.

   class T
     def self.meth; "T.meth" end
     def meth; "T#meth" end
   end
   def T; T.new; end

   p T.meth
   p T().meth
   p T.new.meth

Quick, which one(s) are calling the class method, T#meth. But maybe 
that's just me.

As long as we're playing in the global space, I'd define a lower case 
method, #transformer. Saves a keystroke, too.

-- 
       vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407