From: Fearless Fool <r@...>
Date: 2011-04-15T16:43:58+09:00
Subject: Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern

@Kevin:

Kevin Mahler wrote in post #992945:
>   ...
>   def define_foo(obj, clazz, method)
>     obj.singleton_class.class_eval do
>       define_method :foo do
>         Class.new do
>           define_method method do |*args|
>             clazz.send(method, obj, *args)
>           end
>         end.new
>       end
>     end
>   end

That's some mighty fine code-fu -- back in the day I had no problem with 
metaprogramming constructs in scheme, but I'm not yet at ease with the 
syntax and class structure of Ruby.

> Returning facade or proxy objects like this can be an elegant solution
> to certain problems. It's rather high on the abstraction ladder, though,
> and without knowing the context I would wonder if more direct solutions
> are possible.

Well, yes -- as per my previous post.  Since you must call define_foo() 
for each object & method you want to cover, I don't see a lot of 
advantage to the approach.  But it does show off Ruby's function 
defining tricks nicely.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.