>> 2) you have to be careful with interpolation, in any case, as there are
> > scope changes to watch out for.
>
> Can you elaborate on this?
>
Sure. You can do this, and it works:
x = [1,2,3]
class << x
def sum_of_squares
collect { |x| x*x }.inject { |a,b| a+b }
end
end
p x.su
On Feb 25, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Brice Figureau wrote:
>> [...]
>> I think this basic model is sound, and is roughly what I'd do.
>>
>> You could also have a builtin system to allow classes to specify
>> which methods should normally be probed. E.g., create a module that
>> essentially does this:
>>
On 25/02/11 20:54, Markus Roberts wrote:
> B --
>
>
> Thanks for the example. This is quite interesting and opens the door to
> a lot of strange things :)
>
>
> Yes it does. Be sure to have a big stick handy when you open that door. :)
>
>
> I was thinking about allowing the us
On 25/02/11 20:46, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
>
>> On 25/02/11 18:29, Markus Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>> There's also a 3rd thing I didn't started working on: allow the
>>> code to set probes dynamically (instead of statistically adding
>>> them by modifyi
B --
Thanks for the example. This is quite interesting and opens the door to
> a lot of strange things :)
>
Yes it does. Be sure to have a big stick handy when you open that door. :)
> I was thinking about allowing the user to describe probes by specifying
> a puppet class and a method throu
On Feb 25, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Brice Figureau wrote:
> On 25/02/11 18:29, Markus Roberts wrote:
>>
>>There's also a 3rd thing I didn't started working on: allow the code to
>>set probes dynamically (instead of statistically adding them by
>>modifying puppet code). I don't know if ruby
On 25/02/11 18:29, Markus Roberts wrote:
>
> There's also a 3rd thing I didn't started working on: allow the code to
> set probes dynamically (instead of statistically adding them by
> modifying puppet code). I don't know if ruby versatility can allow this,
> but I'd love to be abl
> There's also a 3rd thing I didn't started working on: allow the code to
> set probes dynamically (instead of statistically adding them by
> modifying puppet code). I don't know if ruby versatility can allow this,
> but I'd love to be able to instance_eval { ... add probes around a
> method ... }
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 13:47 -0800, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Brice Figureau wrote:
>
> > On 23/02/11 07:05, Luke Kanies wrote:
> >> I thought this design point would be interesting, assuming I can make
> >> it sufficiently clearly.
> >>
> >> I just did a refactor of my Int
On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Brice Figureau wrote:
> On 23/02/11 07:05, Luke Kanies wrote:
>> I thought this design point would be interesting, assuming I can make
>> it sufficiently clearly.
>>
>> I just did a refactor of my Interfaces work - previously, I had a
>> base class of Puppet::Interfac
On 23/02/11 07:05, Luke Kanies wrote:
> I thought this design point would be interesting, assuming I can make
> it sufficiently clearly.
>
> I just did a refactor of my Interfaces work - previously, I had a
> base class of Puppet::Interface, and all interfaces were subclasses
> of that class.
>
>
On Feb 24, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Markus Roberts wrote:
> L --
>
BTW this is discussed a bit in Analysis Patterns by Martin Fowler as the
operational layer and knowledge layer (where the classes are at the
operational layer and the instances are the knowledge layer).
>>>
>>> Yeah. I
L --
>>> BTW this is discussed a bit in Analysis Patterns by Martin Fowler as the
>>> operational layer and knowledge layer (where the classes are at the
>>> operational layer and the instances are the knowledge layer).
>>
>> Yeah. I like Martin's stuff in general but on this I've never found
>
On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Markus Roberts wrote:
> L --
>
>> BTW this is discussed a bit in Analysis Patterns by Martin Fowler as the
>> operational layer and knowledge layer (where the classes are at the
>> operational layer and the instances are the knowledge layer).
>
> Yeah. I like Mart
L --
> BTW this is discussed a bit in Analysis Patterns by Martin Fowler as the
> operational layer and knowledge layer (where the classes are at the
> operational layer and the instances are the knowledge layer).
Yeah. I like Martin's stuff in general but on this I've never found
his distinct
On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Markus Roberts wrote:
> L --
>
>> I thought this design point would be interesting, assuming I can make it
>> sufficiently clearly.
>>
>> I just did a refactor of my Interfaces work - previously, I had a base class
>> of Puppet::Interface, and all interfaces were s
L --
> I thought this design point would be interesting, assuming I can make it
> sufficiently clearly.
>
> I just did a refactor of my Interfaces work - previously, I had a base class
> of Puppet::Interface, and all interfaces were subclasses of that class.
>
> However, once Dan Bode asked for
Hi all,
I thought this design point would be interesting, assuming I can make it
sufficiently clearly.
I just did a refactor of my Interfaces work - previously, I had a base class of
Puppet::Interface, and all interfaces were subclasses of that class.
However, once Dan Bode asked for a separat
18 matches
Mail list logo
