Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.ruby > #2942
| From | Kevin Mahler <kevin.mahler@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.ruby |
| Subject | Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern |
| Date | 2011-04-15 08:44 -0500 |
| Organization | Service de news de lacave.net |
| Message-ID | <7955c9f83df5347bbe5fc000bc9e93f6@ruby-forum.com> (permalink) |
| References | <d0c168880ff1c65dd84fc6d70778ddb2@ruby-forum.com> <fe2a1539e193df32600e0c6768313e7e@ruby-forum.com> <8168e82bf280948bb58750b7b5e9632e@ruby-forum.com> |
Fearless Fool wrote in post #992947: >> ... >> def define_foo(obj, clazz, method) >> obj.singleton_class.class_eval do >> define_method :foo do >> Class.new do >> define_method method do |*args| >> clazz.send(method, obj, *args) >> end >> end.new >> end >> end >> end > >That's some mighty fine code-fu... Um, no it's not. Inspecting from top to bottom: (a) open the singleton class, (b) define a method, (c) create an instance of a new class (d) define a method. This has nothing to do with code-fu. One of the problems with Ruby is that the syntax changes depending on the compile-time or run-time context, which is a totally arbitrary distinction. It's a disservice to programmers because it makes them say "code-fu" when presented with the run-time counterparts of familiar, mundane compile-time constructs. Don't get me started about using eval to "fix" that. >Since you must call define_foo() for each object & method you want to >cover, I don't see a lot of advantage to the approach. You can automate it as much as you like, including removing the need for define_foo(). Perhaps you took my code too literally. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Back to comp.lang.ruby | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
looking for an "inversion" pattern Fearless Fool <r@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-15 00:16 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Fearless Fool <r@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-15 01:27 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-15 04:24 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Fearless Fool <r@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-15 10:40 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-16 15:29 +0200
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Kevin Mahler <kevin.mahler@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-15 02:14 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Fearless Fool <r@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-15 02:43 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Kevin Mahler <kevin.mahler@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-15 08:44 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern 7stud -- <bbxx789_05ss@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-16 13:20 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern 7stud -- <bbxx789_05ss@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-16 13:43 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Jesús Gabriel y Galán <jgabrielygalan@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 02:45 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Brian Candler <b.candler@pobox.com> - 2011-04-16 16:14 -0500
Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-16 23:40 +0200
csiph-web