Selon Peter Vanbroekhoven <calamitates / gmail.com>:

>
> Then it must be missing from the proposal, it was certainly intended to be
> possible.

It isn't. Both "Cut.new(A) {...}" and "cut <<obj ... end" are shown in the text
of the RCR. You didn't forget them. Eric just overlooked them.

 As for the unnecessary complexity, I don't agree. Naming the cut
> allows you to access it again, and change methods ro remove them, etc. It
> gives you a handle on them.
>

It also allows you to define more than one cut on one class, allowing you to
organise the concerns by domain and meaning, instead of having one big mess of
concerns in a single place (or worse: in the original class).

As for the RCR being not concise enough, I found it to be just right. Aspects
are usually described with undefined buzzwords and a lot of propaganda. It was
nice to see something more palatable, which took the time to explain clearly
and in a neutral tone the ins and outs of cuts and AOP.
>
> The reason for cuts, for naming them, and the rest of the RCR, is simply
> because any other way proposed (using closures as above, and already shown
> in the past by Ara I think, or using method aliasing, and so on) makes it
> very hard to manage the stack of methods. Cuts give you the handle to do
> so. If you want the set of methods you've added, you can just grab the cut
> and you've got them.
>

And if you want only the methods related to one particular concern, just grab
the cut you specifically defined for it, and don't touch the others. I also
think it would make AOP easier to document in the source code.
--
Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.