From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2003-09-14T14:59:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Dot versus double-colon

Michael Garriss wrote:
> Hal Fulton wrote:
> 
>> Michael Garriss wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Garriss wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hal Fulton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even though it looks almost like recursion. Hmm, that raises
>>>>> the question of why/how this works.
>>>>>
>>>>> And another issue is: One *could* write a little module that,
>>>>> when included in a class, exposed all the class's constants in
>>>>> this way. Within five minutes I had it "almost" working. I'll
>>>>> bet someone in another timezone or with more caffeine could
>>>>> have it working in three. Anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> module Dot
>>>>  def Dot.append_features( mod )
>>>>    mod.constants.each{|c| mod.class_eval( "def self.#{c}() 
>>>> #{mod}::#{c} end" ) }
>>>>  end
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>
>>> Has to be included after all consts are defined......working on 
>>> that......
>>
>>
>>
>> constant_added might help. and fyi, I was trying to use
>> define_method rather than eval'ing a string. wonder if
>> the techniques are interchangeable?
>>
> 
> Not sure.  For some reason I never use #define_method.  I tend to get a 
> little #eval happy sometimes.  It was just so exicting when I learned 
> about #eval that I have trouble putting it down.  I'll have to add 
> #define_method (and #constant_added for that matter) to my bag 'o tricks.

I think I meant constant_missing. Hmm, *is* there a constant_added??? If
not, maybe there should be.

But constant_missing might not be useful here. My brain is *really*
getting cloudy now.

I'm the same way. I've overused eval in the past (by some people's
standards). But now we've got const_[gs]et, instance_variable_[gs]et,
define_method, and all that coolness. These often obviate the need
for eval.

Hal