From: Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
Date: 2002-01-13T13:47:23+09:00
Subject: Re: FileHandle (was: Re: Dir.entries have no home)

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 02:56:32 GMT, Massimiliano Mirra
<list@chromatic-harp.com> wrote:

>  def method_missing(method_id, *args, &block)
>    if @info.keys.include? method_id
>      # Read from @info hash
>      #
>      which = args.shift || :old
>      @info[method_id][which]
>
>    elsif method_id.to_s =~ /(\w+)=/ and @info.keys.include?($1.intern)
>      # Assign to new values in @info hash
>      #
>      @info[$1.intern][:new] = args.shift
>      
>    elsif @stat.respond_to? method_id
>      # Act as a proxy for @stat
>      #
>      @stat.send(method_id, *args, &block)
>
>    else
>      super
>    end

OK, let's see what that first bit is about:

>  def method_missing(method_id, *args, &block)
>    if @info.keys.include? method_id
>      # Read from @info hash
>      #
>      which = args.shift || :old
>      @info[method_id][which]

So if the method id is one of our keys, namely location mode path name
uid or gid, then we return the old value of that key or the value
indicated by the arg, i.e. it acts, for example, like

def location (*args)
  @location[args.shift | :old]
end

if@ location was a hash with keys old/new. Is that right?

If that's right, I might have thought that defining the methods would
be more clear, and, not that it's important, more efficient. Am I
missing the meaning, or not understanding the goodness of this
approach?

OK, it's bedtime here, I'll read more tomorrow ...

Ronald E Jeffries
http://www.XProgramming.com
http://www.objectmentor.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide whether it's true for you.