From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@...>
Date: 2013-02-06T13:09:07+09:00
Subject: Re: using an instance variable inside a method

--f46d04287a17ba619904d5067c87
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 2/5/13 7:59 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
> Incidentally, I didn't realise the parser would recognise `price` above
> as a function call; I thought lexically it looked like a local variable.
> Does the attr_accessor directive make it more clever?  Are attributes
> lexically different from function calls?  Am I overthinking something?

On 6 February 2013 12:44, Ryan Victory <ryan@raptormail.net> wrote:

>  I'm certainly no expert on the Ruby interpreter, however I'd guess that
> in order to support monkey-patching, multi file classes, and dynamic
> dispatch/metaprogramming, the parser assumes that any part of the code it
> can't find at the moment of parsing may be defined somewhere else and
> leaves it alone until run time. Just my guess.
>

Oh of course.  If there's no explicit variable creation (price = ...) in
the current context, it has to assume it's a function.  Don't mind me,
carry on.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin, B.Sc (CompSci) (Hons)
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
  ABN: 59-013-727-651

  "You'll never find a programming language that frees
  you from the burden of clarifying your ideas." - xkcd

--f46d04287a17ba619904d5067c87
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>On 2/5/13 7:59 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:</div><d=
iv>&gt; Incidentally, I didn&#39;t realise the parser would recognise `pric=
e` above</div><div>&gt; as a function call; I thought lexically it looked l=
ike a local variable.</div>
<div>&gt; Does the attr_accessor directive make it more clever? =A0Are attr=
ibutes</div><div>&gt; lexically different from function calls? =A0Am I over=
thinking something?</div></div><div><br></div><div>On 6 February 2013 12:44=
, Ryan Victory <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ryan@raptormail.net"=
 target=3D"_blank">ryan@raptormail.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border=
-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
    I&#39;m certainly no expert on the Ruby interpreter, however I&#39;d gu=
ess
    that in order to support monkey-patching, multi file classes, and
    dynamic dispatch/metaprogramming, the parser assumes that any part
    of the code it can&#39;t find at the moment of parsing may be defined
    somewhere else and leaves it alone until run time. Just my guess.<span =
class=3D""><font color=3D"#888888"><br></font></span></div></blockquote></d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div>Oh of course. =A0If there&#39;s no =
explicit variable creation (price =3D ...) in the current context, it has t=
o assume it&#39;s a function. =A0Don&#39;t mind me, carry on.<br clear=3D"a=
ll">
<div><br></div>-- <br>=A0 Matthew Kerwin, B.Sc (CompSci) (Hons)<br>=A0 <a h=
ref=3D"http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/" target=3D"_blank">http://matthew.kerw=
in.net.au/</a><br>=A0 ABN: 59-013-727-651<br><br>=A0 &quot;You&#39;ll never=
 find a programming language that frees<br>
=A0 you from the burden of clarifying your ideas.&quot; - xkcd
</div></div></div>

--f46d04287a17ba619904d5067c87--