From: Chuck Remes <cremes.devlist@...>
Date: 2011-12-06T03:00:59+09:00
Subject: Re: help with recursive method def'n using eval

On Dec 5, 2011, at 4:01 AM, Pete Higgins wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Chuck Remes <cremes.devlist@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 3, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Intransition wrote:
>> 
>>> On Saturday, December 3, 2011 4:44:58 PM UTC-5, Chuck Remes wrote:
>>> I should have waited a few more minutes. After typing this up, I was hit
>> by inspiration. Here is my solution.
>>> 
>>> I find writing an issue up often helps me figure out a problem, so it's
>> not uncommon to post for some help and then figure it out a few minutes
>> later.
>>> 
>>> Maybe a good lesson in this -- write up the post, but give it a few
>> minutes before actually sending it.
>> 
>> Quite true. Perhaps my "thinking out loud" in public has been helpful for
>> someone else too.
>> 
>> I guess the technical term for this is "rubber ducking."
>> 
>> cr
>> 
>> 
> If it's not important to output the constructed string, you could do it
> like this:
> [snip alternative approach]

Pete, thanks for figuring out another approach. I prefer building a string and eval'ing it because it's easier (IMHO) to verify that the generated code is correct by examining the string. Using #define_method works quite well too, but when something is wrong with the method definition it's a bit tougher to track down and fix.

cr