From: dblack@...
Date: 2002-10-31T02:49:39+09:00
Subject: Re: method-call style (was Re: Snippet: Tiny Featureless Ruby Web Server)

Hi --

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:

> 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

Yeah, I was worried I couldn't get away with that dinkiness :-)  But
still, I'm not convinced that "def stuff; @stuff; end" really deserves
to be looked at as a special case.

> 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"?

Memories of a thread from a month or two ago... :-)  I can't remember
what the thread was called, but I don't think it reached a consensus.
Some interesting things along the way, though.


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav