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 c
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 jus
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,
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 wro
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
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
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
