[#8566] Visions for 2001/1.7.x development? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi matz and other Ruby developers,

18 messages 2001/01/03
[#8645] Re: Visions for 2001/1.7.x development? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/01/04

Hi,

[#8580] bug?? — jmichel@... (Jean Michel)

I don't understand the following behaviour:

19 messages 2001/01/03

[#8633] Interesting Language performance comparisons - Ruby, OCAML etc — "g forever" <g24ever@...>

13 messages 2001/01/04

[#8774] No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...>

So, why not include Comparable in Array by default? It shouldn't have any

28 messages 2001/01/07
[#8779] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/01/07

Hi,

[#8780] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2001/01/07

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:

[#8781] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 2001/01/07

In message "[ruby-talk:8780] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array"

[#8782] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2001/01/07

gotoken@math.sci.hokudai.ac.jp (GOTO Kentaro) wrote:

[#8829] Sandbox (again) — wys@... (Clemens Wyss)

Hi,

20 messages 2001/01/08
[#8864] Re: Sandbox (again) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 2001/01/08

On 8 Jan, Clemens Wyss wrote:

[#8931] String confusion — Anders Bengtsson <ndrsbngtssn@...>

Hello everyone,

21 messages 2001/01/09
[#8937] Re: String confusion — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/01/09

Hi,

[#8953] Please remove account from files — "Thomas Daniels" <westernporter@...>

Please take my e-mail address from your files and "CANCEL" my =

14 messages 2001/01/09
[#8983] Re: Please remove account from files — John Rubinubi <rubinubi@...> 2001/01/10

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Thomas Daniels wrote:

[#9020] time to divide -talk? (was: Please remove account from files) — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2001/01/10

At Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:23:30 +0900,

[#9047] Re: time to divide -talk? (was: Please remov e account from files) — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

Yasushi Shoji:

27 messages 2001/01/10
[#9049] Re: time to divide -talk? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2001/01/10

At Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:20:45 +0900,

[#9153] what about this begin? — Anders Strandl Elkj誡 <ase@...> 2001/01/11

[#9195] Re: Redefining singleton methods — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "H" == Horst Duch=EAne?= <iso-8859-1> writes:

10 messages 2001/01/12

[#9242] polymorphism — Maurice Szmurlo <maurice@...>

hello

73 messages 2001/01/13

[#9279] Can ruby replace php? — Jim Freeze <jim@...>

When I read that ruby could be used to replace PHP I got really

15 messages 2001/01/14

[#9411] The Ruby Way — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>

As a member of the "Big 8" newsgroups, "The Ruby Way" (of posting) is to

15 messages 2001/01/17

[#9462] Re: reading an entire file as a string — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "R" == Raja S <raja@cs.indiana.edu> writes:

35 messages 2001/01/17
[#9465] Re: reading an entire file as a string — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2001/01/17

raja@cs.indiana.edu (Raja S.) writes:

[#9521] Larry Wall INterview — ianm74@...

Larry was interviewed at the Perl/Ruby conference in Koyoto:

20 messages 2001/01/18
[#10583] Re: Larry Wall INterview — "greg strockbine" <gstrock@...> 2001/02/08

Larry Wall's interview is how I found out

[#9610] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages — "Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly@...>

"Christian" <christians@syd.microforte.com.au> wrote:

13 messages 2001/01/20

[#9761] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "C" == Christoph Rippel <crippel@primenet.com> writes:

16 messages 2001/01/23

[#9792] Ruby 162 installer available — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

15 messages 2001/01/24

[#9958] Re: Vim syntax files again. — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Hugh Sasse wrote:

14 messages 2001/01/26
[#10065] Re: Vim syntax files again. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...> 2001/01/29

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Conrad Schneiker wrote:

[#9975] line continuation — "David Ruby" <ruby_david@...>

can a ruby statement break into multiple lines?

18 messages 2001/01/27
[#9976] Re: line continuation — Michael Neumann <neumann@...> 2001/01/27

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, David Ruby wrote:

[#9988] Re: line continuation — harryo@... (Harry Ohlsen) 2001/01/28

>A statement break into mutliple lines if it is not complete,

[ruby-talk:9927] Re: ANN: AspectR 0.2

From: Robert Feldt <feldt@...>
Date: 2001-01-26 13:10:47 UTC
List: ruby-talk #9927
Avi,

On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Avi Bryant wrote:

> Having now actually looked over all of your modifications to my unassuming
> little hack ;-), I'm wondering if there might be a way of doing this that
> doesn't require quite so much textual manipulation of code... it's pushing
> the limit right now of what I'm comfortable with, although maybe that's
> just squeamishness on my part. 
> 
But I've always considered (self-)/(code-)modifying code an
underestimated development approach... :-)

I  wonder if its truly "dangerous" or if its only our experience with
traditional programming techniques and dogma.

> what about using method_missing as a dispatcher for wrapped methods?  That
> is, to wrap a method:
> -alias it, as we do now, to some mangled variation of its name
> -undef it
> -add the pre/post advice methods to a hash under the method name's key (in
> a hash local to the class, not a global one like you have now)
> 
We should probably go for a local hash anyhow.

> method_missing then checks if it's been given a wrapped method, and if so
> pulls the advice methods out of the hash, uses send() to make the calls,
> etc.
> It's a little bit of extra overhead (send instead of direct method call,
> and the extra call to method_missing) but it should make things a fair
> bit cleaner, nu?
> 
> Is there any reason this wouldn't work?
> 
Nope, it should. When I originally did my AOP stuff, performance was a 
concern so I didn't consider this an option but I guess the overhead
won't be too high in practice? Figures anyone? (I have to admit my main
source of inspiration for the AOP stuff was the discussion on the
'once' directive on pages 251-252 in pickaxe book, where performance is
the "goal")

My major concern is transparency. Using method_missing might not be
as transparent as the current approach. What if folks wanna wrap
method_missing? Or if they want to install their own method_missing? Or 
if they use other modules that wrap methods? Or if they call
public_instance_methods? We might be able to work around these issues but
we have to be careful. However, similar concerns arise even in
current design, or? Anyhow, IMHO transparency is top concern in AOP
module.

I guess we can parameterize on the dispatch strategy and let people
decide on their own? (I'd hoped for a way to apply AOP to AspectR itself
but I can't see how right now... ;-))

/Robert

In This Thread