From: Igor Pirnovar <lists@...>
Date: 2012-10-26T05:22:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Name/symbol/object type clash? What is happening here?

Yossef Mendelssohn wrote in post #1081211:

> Just because something doesn't work the way you insist it must doesn't
> mean it's broken.

If you claim that using accessors and '@' variables when reopening
Struct classes with class idiom isn't broken, that's fine, but my last
example I gave, clearly indicates differently!  If you do not need it to
be consistent in those simple circumstances you use Struct idiom, that
by no means discredits a more elaborate use, which clearly is broken,
redundant and inconsistent, as I have shown in my previous sample code
snippet, where you need to annul the Struct by the {{ attr_accessor :num
}} line when you reopen the 'S' class, in order to be able to define
more elaborate custom initialization accessor methods.

Let's not waste any more time on this issue. I think we all can tolerate
this apparent glitch. At the same time reiterating that there should be
as few exceptions as possible in the language grammar and its use
certainly is not an out of line proposition. Our discourse, as far as I
am concerned has pointed to all these points, and any previous as well
as further suggestions that Ruby is broken, have nothing to do with what
was originally intended.

Regards, igor

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