Robert Klemme wrote:
> "Jamis Buck" <jgb3 / email.byu.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:412893BB.1050506 / email.byu.edu...
> 
>>Either of those patterns would have worked as well. The state-based
>>approach (which you demonstrated) is especially compelling. Although, I
>>think I like the module-based approach because it eliminates the need
>>for (1) extra state information (like the @state variable) and (2)
>>condition testing (like the 'pre' method), which could become expensive.
> 
> 
> It shares (2) with strategy/state pattern but with the added advantage of
> saving a method call (the delegation).  In fact, the longer I think about it
> the more I like the module approach because it is very similar to the state
> pattern but saves the overhead (you named it) - if only there would be a way
> to unextend a module.  That's really the biggest showstopper for using
> mixins to implement state pattern.  Darn...

Hmm. What about some kind of "toggle!" method, which would dynamically 
re-alias a method between two different implementations? It's not as 
nice as mixins, but it gives the same effect, more or less...

Or... can you dynamically create a new module with the desired 
functionality and extend your object with that? Hmm...

>>"I use octal until I get to 8, and then I switch to decimal."
> 
> 
> How do you get to "8" in octal?  Is there a new variant "octal plus" that
> has other digits than 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7? :-)

:) That's the idea. It was a quote of a coworker of mine explaining 
(facetiously) why he prefers the decimal base to the octal base.

> 
> Kind regards
> 
>     robert

- Jamis

-- 
Jamis Buck
jgb3 / email.byu.edu
http://www.jamisbuck.org/jamis

"I use octal until I get to 8, and then I switch to decimal."