On Aug 23, 2009, at 15:35 , Jordan Fowler wrote:
> I sorta just threw that last bit together. Guyren, I may not be in
> complete understanding of why you need to do this, but in my
> opinion, it seems that you are trading well designed code for
> convenience in a single use case. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong. :-)
I'm trying to develop a web framework that in part employs the notion
that if all your methods accepted their arguments by name instead of
position, then you could make *any* of them trivially available via
HTTP (a URL is treated as a by-name function call). So I want to make
writing by-name methods as easy as possible.
The idea is also to expose basic functional programming idioms
automatically between such functions including via HTTP as part of the
framework. For example, if you call one of my by-name functions and
you don't pass it all of its required arguments, you get a curried
function. If you do that over the web, you get back a form.
That's just part of it. There are some other ideas I'm not going to
talk about yet.
My first test looks like this:
test_fun = fn do |f|
f.required_args :foo, :bar
f.optional_args :bee, :baz => 'baz'
f.fn do
puts "foo #{foo} bar #{bar} bee #{bee} baz #{baz}"
end
end
test_fun[:foo => 'foo', :bar => 'bar']
Regards,
Guyren G Howe
Relevant Logic LLC
guyren-at-relevantlogic.com ~ http://relevantlogic.com ~ +1 512 784 3178
Ruby/Rails, REALbasic, PHP programming
PostgreSQL, MySQL database design and consulting
Technical writing and training
Read my book, Real OOP with REALbasic:
<http://relevantlogic.com/oop-book/about-the-oop-book.php
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
SD Ruby mailing list
sdruby@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
