bryan.a.soto at gmail.com
Mon Apr 3 18:21:04 EDT 2006
On 4/3/06, TRANS <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/3/06, Bryan Soto <bryan.a.soto at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/3/06, TRANS <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ah.. another reason modified but backward compatible #attr methods are
> > > a safe bet.
> > >
> > Yes, the Ruby community is very open to modifying core methods, don't
> > you think? ;)
> If it's "backward compatible" what's the difference?
> I don't really mind either way, I'm just saying.
It was just a joke. :) I was just trying to imagine what certain
denizens of the mailing list would have had to say about that
Seriously though, in the context of this thread, you'd still have the
original problem of how do you access them with a name that's not
properties. Besides, if we go that route, I'd prefer we just annotate.
Hmm... That's a thought. Why not just store the properties as
annotations? The prop_* methods and property could just be interfaces
to the annotation system. I wonder if that would work...
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they
will surprise you with their ingenuity." —General George S. Patton
More information about the Nitro-general