Camping::H hasn''t longer indiffenrent access:
h = Camping::H.new
h.title = "Sweet!"
h[:title] != h["title"]
Should we (1) don''t make it indifferent at all, but rather say you
should
always use method_missing (2) add indifferent access?
Here is one such implementation in 86 bytes, in case we want it:
class H < Hash
i=''def []!(k,v)Symbol===k ?self[k.to_s]!v:super end;''
eval
i.tr(''!'',''='')+i.tr(''!,v'','''')
end
//Magnus Holm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20090124/591c40e2/attachment.html>
Hi Magnus, I prefer using method_missing, with string access for fallback when key names are not compatible with ruby method names.
On Jan 24, 2009, at 7:24, zimbatm <zimbatm at oree.ch> wrote:> Hi Magnus, > > I prefer using method_missing, with string access for fallback when > key names are not compatible with ruby method names.And I prefer symbols, but it''s a total edge case to me. Strings are great too, and it''d bug me less than indifference. Aria
Yes, I want my method access too!.. Perhaps it''d be extra worthy of the ''2.0'' if you also did something akin to: def [](k);super(k.to_s);end def []=(k,v);super(k.to_s,v);end it''s some bytes, but I think it''s worth it! What ever happened to Mash? On 25/01/2009, at 1:50 AM, Aria Stewart wrote:> On Jan 24, 2009, at 7:24, zimbatm <zimbatm at oree.ch> wrote: > >> Hi Magnus, >> >> I prefer using method_missing, with string access for fallback when >> key names are not compatible with ruby method names. > > And I prefer symbols, but it''s a total edge case to me. Strings are > great too, and it''d bug me less than indifference. > > Aria > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Doh, the snippet I wrote was actually really stupid. Forgot we can safely call super without thinking of recursive calls. What do you guys think? Is it worth it? Method access won''t go away, and Mash was just an experiement; I don''t want to add another dependency on Camping. //Magnus Holm On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 21:12, Jenna Fox <blueberry at creativepony.com> wrote:> Yes, I want my method access too!.. > > Perhaps it''d be extra worthy of the ''2.0'' if you also did something akin > to: > > def [](k);super(k.to_s);end > def []=(k,v);super(k.to_s,v);end > > it''s some bytes, but I think it''s worth it! > > What ever happened to Mash? > > > > On 25/01/2009, at 1:50 AM, Aria Stewart wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2009, at 7:24, zimbatm <zimbatm at oree.ch> wrote: >> >> Hi Magnus, >>> >>> I prefer using method_missing, with string access for fallback when >>> key names are not compatible with ruby method names. >>> >> >> And I prefer symbols, but it''s a total edge case to me. Strings are great >> too, and it''d bug me less than indifference. >> >> Aria >> _______________________________________________ >> Camping-list mailing list >> Camping-list at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >> > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20090124/8a9ebb19/attachment.html>
Yes! give me indifferent access! :D On 25/01/2009, at 7:35 AM, Magnus Holm wrote:> Doh, the snippet I wrote was actually really stupid. Forgot we can > safely call super without thinking of recursive calls. What do you > guys think? Is it worth it? > > Method access won''t go away, and Mash was just an experiement; I > don''t want to add another dependency on Camping. > > //Magnus Holm > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 21:12, Jenna Fox > <blueberry at creativepony.com> wrote: > Yes, I want my method access too!.. > > Perhaps it''d be extra worthy of the ''2.0'' if you also did something > akin to: > > def [](k);super(k.to_s);end > def []=(k,v);super(k.to_s,v);end > > it''s some bytes, but I think it''s worth it! > > What ever happened to Mash? > > > > On 25/01/2009, at 1:50 AM, Aria Stewart wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2009, at 7:24, zimbatm <zimbatm at oree.ch> wrote: > > Hi Magnus, > > I prefer using method_missing, with string access for fallback when > key names are not compatible with ruby method names. > > And I prefer symbols, but it''s a total edge case to me. Strings are > great too, and it''d bug me less than indifference. > > Aria > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20090125/b474452d/attachment.html>
I''m pretty indifferent about access. On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jenna Fox <blueberry at creativepony.com> wrote:> Yes! give me indifferent access! :D > > On 25/01/2009, at 7:35 AM, Magnus Holm wrote: > > Doh, the snippet I wrote was actually really stupid. Forgot we can safely > call super without thinking of recursive calls. What do you guys think? Is > it worth it? > Method access won''t go away, and Mash was just an experiement; I don''t want > to add another dependency on Camping. > //Magnus Holm > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 21:12, Jenna Fox <blueberry at creativepony.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, I want my method access too!.. >> >> Perhaps it''d be extra worthy of the ''2.0'' if you also did something akin >> to: >> >> def [](k);super(k.to_s);end >> def []=(k,v);super(k.to_s,v);end >> >> it''s some bytes, but I think it''s worth it! >> >> What ever happened to Mash? >> >> >> On 25/01/2009, at 1:50 AM, Aria Stewart wrote: >> >>> On Jan 24, 2009, at 7:24, zimbatm <zimbatm at oree.ch> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Magnus, >>>> >>>> I prefer using method_missing, with string access for fallback when >>>> key names are not compatible with ruby method names. >>> >>> And I prefer symbols, but it''s a total edge case to me. Strings are great >>> too, and it''d bug me less than indifference. >>> >>> Aria >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Camping-list mailing list >>> Camping-list at rubyforge.org >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Camping-list mailing list >> Camping-list at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >