I'm pretty indifferent about access.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jenna Fox <[email protected]> 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 <[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 > _______________________________________________ Camping-list mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
