[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