[Nitro] properties

Bryan Soto 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
suggestion. ;)

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
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
>


--
"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 mailing list