[Nitro] Aspects

George Moschovitis george.moschovitis at gmail.com
Thu Aug 30 07:36:58 EDT 2007


I find the second solution more natural (what matz descibes in the provided
link) more natural.
This is the behaviour I would expect. But, even the first solution may be ok
in 90% of the cases.
Unless theres is a considerable performance/complexity penalty, lets go for
the second solution. Then we can switch to the official solution when Ruby
1.9 is finally released.

regards,
-g.


On 8/29/07, Trans <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 29, 7:14 am, "George Moschovitis"
> <george.moschovi... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lets go for the later then...
>
> I got it to work either way. So lets decide based on what is the most
> desirable behavior.
>
> Consider carefully the difference.
>
>   BEFORE:Y#x
>   Y#x
>   BEFORE:X#x
>   X#x
>   AFTER:X#x
>   AFTER:Y#x
>
> vs.
>
>   BEFORE:Y#x
>   BEFORE:X#x
>   Y#x
>   X#x
>   AFTER:X#x
>   AFTER:Y#x
>
> The 1st is analogous to sub-classing, so it's perhaps the most
> obvious. However, is what Matz seems to have in mind for his :before
> and :after decorators which are modeled after CLOS. See
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/85464.
>
> T.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
>



-- 
http://www.me.gr
http://phidz.com
http://blog.gmosx.com
http://cull.gr
http://www.joy.gr
http://nitroproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/nitro-general/attachments/20070830/2d1ea2bf/attachment.html 


More information about the Nitro-general mailing list