From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-10-31T02:38:03+09:00
Subject: Re: method-call style (was Re: Snippet: Tiny Featureless Ruby Web Server)

dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote:

> I don't think one should make that assumption; it's awfully rigid.  I
> might have:

>   def stuff=(x)
>     @thing = x
>   end

>   def stuff
>     @thing
>   end

> which is a dinky example at best... but meaning there is no necessary
> connection between the methods and the implementation.

Hi David,

Well, it looks like a contrieved example, so it is really a matter of
personal style/convention.  But now suppose that someone really writes a
code like above in a class, and I want to derive a new class from it, and
I need to access "the object logically represented by
stuff/thing".  In my derived class, should I use "@thing" or should I use
"self.stuff"?

Regards,

Bill