Yes! give me indifferent access! :D
On 25/01/2009, at 7:35 AM, Magnus Holm wrote:
Doh, the snippet I wrote was actually really stupid. Forgot we can
safely call super without thinking of recursive calls. What do you
guys think? Is it worth it?
Method access won't go away, and Mash was just an experiement; I
don't want to add another dependency on Camping.
//Magnus Holm
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 21:12, Jenna Fox
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I want my method access too!..
Perhaps it'd be extra worthy of the '2.0' if you also did something
akin to:
def [](k);super(k.to_s);end
def []=(k,v);super(k.to_s,v);end
it's some bytes, but I think it's worth it!
What ever happened to Mash?
On 25/01/2009, at 1:50 AM, Aria Stewart wrote:
On Jan 24, 2009, at 7:24, zimbatm <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Magnus,
I prefer using method_missing, with string access for fallback when
key names are not compatible with ruby method names.
And I prefer symbols, but it's a total edge case to me. Strings are
great too, and it'd bug me less than indifference.
Aria
_______________________________________________
Camping-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
_______________________________________________
Camping-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
_______________________________________________
Camping-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
_______________________________________________
Camping-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
