On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 03:26:09AM +0900, Sam Roberts wrote:
> Quoteing dave / pragprog.com, on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:47:37AM +0900:
> > you're giving up a fair amount of clarity in your source to save 3 
> > characters. If it's a method, why not make it a method?
> 
> I agree with this, but the opposite is useful, and not possible to get
> by changing the code.
> 
> What goes in the attrs section is decided by an implementation detail of
> using attr_*, but if you have 3 "attributes", but 1 you have to
> implement with some code (maybe it returns an object/information you
> don't to want to create/calculate until necessary), it'll appear in the
> methods section. Fair enough, but a reader doesn't care how I implement
> my attributes, and having whats in the section be so arbitrary makes it
> hard to find things, you never know what section it will be in when
> consulting the docs.

Exactly, that was what I meant. But what is the best solution to this...
considering all foo=(arg) can't be the solution, however I can't think 
of a time when you not mean this to mimic an attribute.

Paul

-- 
Student @ Eindhoven                         | JID:   paul / luon.net
University of Technology, The Netherlands   | email: paul / luon.net
>>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG: finger paul / luon.net