From: Igor Pirnovar <lists@...>
Date: 2012-10-26T08:19:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Name/symbol/object type clash? What is happening here?

Bartosz Dziewoński wrote in post #1081236:

> Verb isn't grammar. It is a word. Please rethink what you just wrote.

According to Ruby grammar {{ class S; def @var = value; end }} is the
definition of instance method and again according to Ruby grammar
convention its use is defined as {{ S#var = value }}.  Here, the
accessor method can be considered a verb or operator. Idiom {{ class S;
end }} is according to Ruby grammar the definition of class 'S'. If for
some word grammar seems inappropriate here, I do not intend to convince
you otherwise. Likewise I never meant to say that verb is grammar, but
it nevertheless represents grammatical conception or term and it is in
this context that I used the word, suggesting otherwise is pretending
ignorance.

> You should use class S < Struct.new(:num) here, and then properly call
> super. I'm sure you can find examples of what it does online, do try.

As for 'infinite recursion', it is I, who is objecting to this use all
along and pointing out that Struct should be fixed so it would
understand, conform and obey the Ruby instance variable grammar and
rules.

Use of '@' instance variables is sometimes unavoidable and necessary.
Ruby grammar is clear about its use, except when it comes to the
conundrum of mixing Struct with class reopening, and using instance
variables in this context. The examples above clearly demonstrate these
problems.


Regards, igor

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