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.
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.
> 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
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Nitro-general