[holy ruby programmers batman!] another potential addition
gilesb at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 20:13:35 EST 2008
ps "overcomplicated" means "typing more than three characters not
On 1/3/08, Giles Bowkett <gilesb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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