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 <bluebe...@creativepony.com> 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 <zimb...@oree.ch> 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
>> Camping-list@rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Camping-list mailing list
> Camping-list@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
>
_______________________________________________
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Reply via email to