From: Kevin Mahler <kevin.mahler@...>
Date: 2011-04-15T22:44:04+09:00
Subject: Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern

Fearless Fool wrote in post #992947:
>>   ...
>>   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...

Um, no it's not. Inspecting from top to bottom: (a) open the singleton
class, (b) define a method, (c) create an instance of a new class (d)
define a method. This has nothing to do with code-fu.

One of the problems with Ruby is that the syntax changes depending on
the compile-time or run-time context, which is a totally arbitrary
distinction. It's a disservice to programmers because it makes them
say "code-fu" when presented with the run-time counterparts of
familiar, mundane compile-time constructs.

Don't get me started about using eval to "fix" that.

>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.

You can automate it as much as you like, including removing the need
for define_foo(). Perhaps you took my code too literally.

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