Quoteing paul / luon.net, on Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:55:11AM +0900:
> 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...

I think it is to use the rdoc attributes, the # :..: thingies that can
appear after a method definition.

> 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.

Cheers,
Sam