From: Wilbert Berendsen <wilbert@...>
Date: 2003-01-27T01:04:52+09:00
Subject: Re: cascading configuration variables

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 26 January 2003 16:44, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:15:38 +0900,
>
> Wilbert Berendsen wrote:
> > I would like the variables with their values to be accessible as
> > constants, because I think that is faster than hash lookups, and it looks
> > elegant, because they will get referenced often from other script
> > snippets that get loaded after the config is read.
>
> Retrieving a constant needs to traverse the ancestors of that
> module, it isn't always faster than hash access.  I agree it
> looks simple/elegant.

A question about that traversal to the ancestors of a module:
is it possible to exclude ('mixout') a module again?
e.g.:
	include Modulename
	# now stuff like constants is available
	exclude Modulename
	# now not anymore.

Also: when do like this:
module Bla
	m=Module.new
	m.const_set "ALSA", true
	include m
end

Bla.module_eval "ALSA"
>>> true

Bla.module_eval "m=nil; GC.start"
Bla.module_eval "ALSA"
>>> true

so it seems the ALSA constant is still there; you can't remove modules it 
seems.

> (... re include load)
Yes, I read it. It would be nice and in the spirit of Ruby if it did!

So after all I think constants look nice, but hashes may be the best way to 
go.

bye,
Wilbert

- -- 
Wilbert Berendsen (http://www.xs4all.nl/~wbsoft/)
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+NAavx+vk367Vl7wRAtZyAJwPHGgi9grCyHbsy79//f/hRXGCIwCfWBHT
PBxcFNY320z33/bfLSwsNvY=
=e7xP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----