[holy ruby programmers batman!] another potential addition

Giles Bowkett gilesb at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 20:12:31 EST 2008


> Of course, trying to use it at the same time as u_b, shows the problem
> with overloading object too much - enumeration of methods gets
> dangerous (pastie gets called, since what? goes through all the
> methods, at least of arity 0).  Hmm, I'll have to play with that
> (worse case make it skip "pastie").
>
> Is Pastie.new too verbose? (could then have the option of making
> "pastie" a method on Object, instead of doing so by default).

Well, according to Jeremy Kemper, I shouldn't be adding
collision-prone methods to Object. (However also according to Jeremy
Kemper, Rails autoloading any and all code inside .irbrc is not a
bug.) But long story short the addition of methods to Object is a
lameness. I'm not sure if it's a necessary lameness or not - I think
it is - but the real thing there is that adding so much stuff to
Object does make any Object-greppy code liable to return loads of
irrelevant methods.

Pastie.new I don't like, but even if I said, hey, OK, Pastie.new, it
wouldn't make a ton of difference, because if you want a handy method
to get to it, you still need pastie. If there's a way to stop using
Object in this kinda lame way, I'm all for it, but I wouldn't want to
make the pastie code ugly and overcomplicated just to enable something
I personally wouldn't really use.

I should probably be a bit of a Nazi about adding features, but as
long as they plug and play without messing anything up, I'm in favor
of adding optional features til the cows come home.

-- 
Giles Bowkett

Podcast: http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com


More information about the Utilitybelt-tinkering mailing list