> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean O'Halpin [mailto:sean.ohalpin / gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:05 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: declaratively caching results of a method
> 
> 
> On 10/17/05, Ryan Leavengood <leavengood / gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/17/05, Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger / qwest.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm debating between this suggestion and Pit's (where you 
> access the 
> > > cache via it's name and as an instance method).  I dunno 
> - what do 
> > > people prefer?
> > >
> > > This one is certainly simpler :)
> >
> > I prefer Pit's. Otherwise you'll have to hang on to each cache 
> > yourself (should you memoize several methods), instead of 
> just letting 
> > the class do it.
> >
> > Ryan
> 
> Agreed. Pit's is better (even if more complicated ;)
> 
> Sean

Alrighty, then.  I'll make that change in the next release.

Thanks, all, for the input!

Dan