From: Garthy D <garthy_lmkltybr@...>
Date: 2012-11-22T19:18:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Instance-variable-like user API


Hi Arlen,

On 22/11/12 20:25, Arlen Cuss wrote:
> If you don't mind them accessing all vars through a name, you could have an API like:
>
> class A<  SomeBase
> def initialize
> super
> remote[:v] = 1
> end
>
> def inc
> remote[:v] += 1
> end
>
> def magic
> do_something(remote[:v])
> end
> end
>
> Or:
>
> class A<  SomeBase
> def initialize
> super
> remote.v = 1
> end
>
> def inc
> remote.v += 1
> end
>
> def magic
> do_something(remote.v)
> end
> end
>
>
> It makes it a bit more obvious what's happening. The other benefit of this method is that it's not required to declare these with magic_accessor, as whatever #remote returns can deal magically with #[]/#[]= or #method_missing.

Thanks for putting that together, it's a good solution- and actually 
very close to what I currently have implemented. :) I have a dedicated 
remote object with "[]" and "[]=" to handle arbitrary variables, and as 
you say, there's no need to declare anything with magic_accessor. It all 
happens like magic.

I'd also considered your second suggestion as a possible solution too. 
It's reassuring that people are thinking along the same lines. :)

Unfortunately, in use I found the solution a bit awkward. It's perfectly 
fine for simpler methods, but it gets a bit unwieldy when doing anything 
complex. At this point I set out to improve it, and ran into the "self." 
shortcoming. At that point I realised I didn't actually know of a nice 
way to improve it without some sort of downside, so I thought I'd post 
to the list to get a second, third, and fourth opinion, in case I'd 
missed something. :}

Cheers,
Garth