From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2002-08-10T16:04:18+09:00
Subject: Re: ambiguity between local variable assignment and writter method

>   class A
>     def initialize(n)
>       thing = n
>       puts "Initializing with argument #{thing}."
>     end
>   end
> 
>   class B < A
>     attr_writer :thing
>   end
> 
> What happens when you now say:
> 
>   b = B.new(123)
> 

...

> (I think this is related to what Dave was saying about subclasses in
> response to Rich, though that's in a slightly different context.)

i see. yes, that would be a problem. although there are plenty of
particulars of knowing how the superclass and the subclass will
interact, so i do not see that as going against it. the fact that the
interaction is not a one-thing-to-its-like-thing but rather a local
varible assignment interacting/interferring with a method, that is
problematic. and this just would not work. you are right.

and i am assumming too that Rich's idea has the same problem.

yes, i did suggest := and/or .= earlier, but only as speed convience. i
would not not vote for it.

now there only seems two options left, and they are both constructions.
the construction just stated above (:=) or, and i think the proper way
to have done it, a prefix symbol for local variables.

	%localvariable = 'i am me, not some method'

unfortunately that's just not going to go over well with the population
at large. and i can only wish that it was included early on. all
variables would have a prefix (%, @, @@, $) and methods would not, Ruby
might be a tad faster, and our conversation would never had to exist.
;-)

~transami

p.s outside of another solution. i have to fall back, unless you all
like %, yeah right! :-}

thanks!