Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!talisker.lacave.net!lacave.net!not-for-mail
From: Fearless Fool <r@alum.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
Subject: Re: looking for an "inversion" pattern
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:43:58 -0500
Organization: Service de news de lacave.net
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <8168e82bf280948bb58750b7b5e9632e@ruby-forum.com>
References: <d0c168880ff1c65dd84fc6d70778ddb2@ruby-forum.com> <fe2a1539e193df32600e0c6768313e7e@ruby-forum.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bristol.highgroove.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: talisker.lacave.net 1302853455 60565 65.111.164.187 (15 Apr 2011 07:44:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@lacave.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:44:15 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <fe2a1539e193df32600e0c6768313e7e@ruby-forum.com>
X-Received-From: This message has been automatically forwarded from the ruby-talk mailing list by a gateway at comp.lang.ruby. If it is SPAM, it did not originate at comp.lang.ruby. Please report the original sender, and not us. Thanks! For more details about this gateway, please visit: http://blog.grayproductions.net/categories/the_gateway
X-Mail-Count: 381612
X-Ml-Name: ruby-talk
X-Rubymirror: Yes
X-Ruby-Talk: <8168e82bf280948bb58750b7b5e9632e@ruby-forum.com>
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.ruby:2922

@Kevin:

Kevin Mahler wrote in post #992945:
>   ...
>   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 -- back in the day I had no problem with 
metaprogramming constructs in scheme, but I'm not yet at ease with the 
syntax and class structure of Ruby.

> Returning facade or proxy objects like this can be an elegant solution
> to certain problems. It's rather high on the abstraction ladder, though,
> and without knowing the context I would wonder if more direct solutions
> are possible.

Well, yes -- as per my previous post.  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.  But it does show off Ruby's function 
defining tricks nicely.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.