Re: H with indifferent access
I'm pretty indifferent about access. On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jenna Fox wrote: > 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 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 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 > > ___ > 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
Re: H with indifferent access
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 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 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 ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: H with indifferent access
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 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 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
Re: H with indifferent access
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 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
Re: H with indifferent access
On Jan 24, 2009, at 7:24, zimbatm 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
Re: H with indifferent access
Hi Magnus, I prefer using method_missing, with string access for fallback when key names are not compatible with ruby method names. ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
H with indifferent access
Camping::H hasn't longer indiffenrent access:
h = Camping::H.new
h.title = "Sweet!"
h[:title] != h["title"]
Should we (1) don't make it indifferent at all, but rather say you should
always use method_missing (2) add indifferent access?
Here is one such implementation in 86 bytes, in case we want it:
class H < Hash
i='def []!(k,v)Symbol===k ?self[k.to_s]!v:super end;'
eval i.tr('!','=')+i.tr('!,v','')
end
//Magnus Holm
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
