"tony summerfelt" <snowzone5 / hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:j3rrc09l54tp03e4smbqvvnsm43flh8j68 / 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:17:55 +0900, you wrote:
>
> >I think the best way to get the behaviour you want is to use a hash.
>
> it seems to be more  work (and lines of code) than  it needs to be for
> just one variable.
>
> i was surprised that ruby didn't have a simple undefine function. and
> for the oo'ness of it, it could look like x.undefine. no more x :)

It can't, because "x" and the object pointed at by it (and which thus
receives method invocations) are two different things.  The instance
referenced by "x" does not know anything about the context's local binding
of "x"; especially it does not know that the method was invoked through a
reference named "x".

    robert