From: Ilias Lazaridis Date: 2011-06-04T20:45:30+09:00 Subject: Re: CORE - Specialized Attribute Definition On 4 Ιούν, 14:04, Josh Cheek wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Ilias Lazaridis wrote: > > On 1 Ιούν, 18:38, Josh Cheek wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Ilias Lazaridis > > wrote: > > > > On 1 Ιούν, 11:28, Josh Cheek wrote: > > > > > 2011/6/1 Ilias Lazaridis > > > > > > On 31 ÌÜúïò, 17:26, Josh Cheek wrote: > > > > > > > [Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal > > post.] > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ilias Lazaridis < > > > > il...@lazaridis.com > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > ruby 1.9 > > > > > > > > > (this is about the *abilities* or the ruby 1.9 language) > > > > > > > > > class Persnon > > > > > > > >  attrib name  String opt1 opt2 > > > > > > > >  attrib age Integer > > > > > > > > end [...] > > The main problem with your suggestion is > > * that any classes to be used must be hardcoded > > * that class constants become functions: [...] > > "However, you would be susceptible to all the method_missing bugs. In [...] > > It's not a bug. You hit on the Module#name method. [...] > Based on all the posts you make in here, it sounds like you would be better [...] - (suggesting processing - not readed completely) It's really no necessary that you suggest me how to process. I've placed concrete questions. If you don't have the answers, it sometimes better to keep silence. - Can someone please confirm? I understand that such a construct could be implemented as a C-level extension (without alteration of the main sources). . -- http://lazaridis.com