On 24/05/05, pat eyler <pat.eyler / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/05, Brian Schröäer <ruby.brian / gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just started with your article, and I wonder why you build a
> > constructor that tests for object classes, why not simply call .to_s
> > on the argument?
> 
> I wrote it that way to create some (artificial, but easy to see)
> boundary conditions for the article, this test doesn't actually
> show up in the released versions of r43.  It would have been
> better to be able to verify the format of the id strings, but I
> wasn't able to find that kind of information about them.
> 
> Actually testing it the way I did was a bit of a stretch.  In the case
> of the test key '1234' you could have a Numeric, but the real keys
> all seem to be alphanumeric.  It's certainly possible to create an
> Array that would be stringified into a valid key as well, e.g.
> ["1", "2", "3", "4"].
> 

I understand your motivation, but I think it is showing something that
I would rate as ugly ruby code to the world. If you really want a
string, you could have used to_str.

Please don't feel offended. I'm not even maintaining a library and
have until now never managed to really develop something test first,
let alone write an article and get it published. I feel that ugly
maybe is a bit too strong a word, but I can't find anything more
subtle.

I think it is important to show good ruby style in articles, and
ducktyping is one part of good style.

best regards,

Brian Schröäer

-- 
http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/

Stringed instrument chords: http://chordlist.brian-schroeder.de/