Just a little curiosity: If method definitions (`def foo; end') were to return a symbol representing the method's name (`:foo' in this case) rather than just nil, would this be possible?
class Klass
private def foo
"Klass#foo"
end
def bar
"Klass#bar"
end
end
obj = Klass.new
obj.bar -> "Klass#bar"
obj.foo -> private method `foo' called...
Cheers,
Daniel
Hi --
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
Just a little curiosity: If method definitions (`def foo; end') were to return a symbol representing the method's name (`:foo' in this case) rather than just nil, would this be possible?
class Klass
private def foo
"Klass#foo"
enddef bar
"Klass#bar"
end
endobj = Klass.new
obj.bar -> "Klass#bar"
obj.foo -> private method `foo' called...
Yes; I think that's one of the main things people who advocate this
want to be able to do (just remembering [I think] from earlier
discussions).
David
--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
Just a little curiosity: If method definitions (`def foo; end') were to return a symbol representing the method's name (`:foo' in this case) rather than just nil, would this be possible?
class Klass
private def foo
"Klass#foo"
enddef bar
"Klass#bar"
end
endobj = Klass.new
obj.bar -> "Klass#bar"
obj.foo -> private method `foo' called...Yes; I think that's one of the main things people who advocate this
want to be able to do (just remembering [I think] from earlier
discussions).David
Could you point me to one of those discussions? I wonder why such a proposal was turned down.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
Hi --
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
Just a little curiosity: If method definitions (`def foo; end') were to return a symbol representing the method's name (`:foo' in this case) rather than just nil, would this be possible?
class Klass
private def foo
"Klass#foo"
enddef bar
"Klass#bar"
end
endobj = Klass.new
obj.bar -> "Klass#bar"
obj.foo -> private method `foo' called...Yes; I think that's one of the main things people who advocate this
want to be able to do (just remembering [I think] from earlier
discussions).David
Could you point me to one of those discussions? I wonder why such a proposal was turned down.
Search for "make def return something useful"
David
--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
As a big proponent of making def return something useful, it was turned
down in part because what would def return to be passed into private
with:
class Klass
private def self.foo
"Klass.foo"
end
end
If you simply do :foo, then you would be applying private to Klass#foo
-- which isn't what you want. But returning more than :foo isn't kosher
either since private doesn't (at this point) know what to do with it.
I *think* Matz would be at least partially in favour of this if we could
figure out something useful and lightweight to return that wouldn't
prevent the above code.
-austin
On 11/18/05, Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
David A. Black wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
Just a little curiosity: If method definitions (`def foo; end') were
to return a symbol representing the method's name (`:foo' in this
case) rather than just nil, would this be possible?class Klass
private def foo
"Klass#foo"
enddef bar
"Klass#bar"
end
endobj = Klass.new
obj.bar -> "Klass#bar"
obj.foo -> private method `foo' called...Yes; I think that's one of the main things people who advocate this
want to be able to do (just remembering [I think] from earlier
discussions).Could you point me to one of those discussions? I wonder why such a
proposal was turned down.
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
Just a little curiosity: If method definitions (`def foo; end') were to return a symbol representing the method's name (`:foo' in this case) rather than just nil, would this be possible?
class Klass
private def foo
"Klass#foo"
enddef bar
"Klass#bar"
end
endobj = Klass.new
obj.bar -> "Klass#bar"
obj.foo -> private method `foo' called...Yes; I think that's one of the main things people who advocate this
want to be able to do (just remembering [I think] from earlier
discussions).David
Could you point me to one of those discussions? I wonder why such a proposal was turned down.
Search for "make def return something useful"
David
This seems to be it:
Though I can't really find a reason for `def' not to return a symbol. The discussion linked to seemed pretty unfocused.
Can anyone give me a good reason *not* to have `def' return a symbol?
Cheers,
Daniel
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Daniel Schierbeck wrote:
I *think* Matz would be at least partially in favour of this if we could
figure out something useful and lightweight to return that wouldn't
prevent the above code.
Peter Vanbroekhoven may have firgured out the best way. He wrote a
patch to return a struct. You can find it here:
http://rubyforge.org/projects/suby/
under 'def return struct'
T.
Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> writes:
Though I can't really find a reason for `def' not to return a
symbol. The discussion linked to seemed pretty unfocused.Can anyone give me a good reason *not* to have `def' return a symbol?
Maybe it would make "load" weird...
class Foo
def bar; end
end
# ---
load 'foo.rb' # => :bar
Christian Neukirchen wrote:
Maybe it would make "load" weird...
class Foo
def bar; end
end# ---
load 'foo.rb' # => :bar
I don't follow... Can you elaborate?
Cheers,
Daniel
Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> writes:
Christian Neukirchen wrote:
Maybe it would make "load" weird...
class Foo
def bar; end
end
# ---
load 'foo.rb' # => :barI don't follow... Can you elaborate?
Nevermind, I was wrong about the return value of Kernel#load.