# [email protected] / 2013-08-29 10:15:30 +0200:
> Now suppose I'd "expect the unexpected" and would want to check if a
> default is used. Now I'd encounter the *visibility* problem. I'd
> have to look where the hash is created and see if a default is set
> there. And that by itself is not enough, because the default could
> be set even at some later point, meaning any code that touches the
> hash is suspect. As a result, I could spend quite some time just by
> ensuring that the hash has no default.

this is a great argument against reopening classes or monkeypatching,
basically against ruby. ;)

/me heading back under the bridge...

-- 
roman
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to