Trans wrote:

>I just finished (are we ever "finished"?) an annotations system that is
>being used by Nitro. Originally I created a class I called a Service
>(bad name I know) to manage first class methods so I could annotate
>them. It worked okay, but had a lot of overhead. Yet there was one
>really bad problem: what about *reusable annotations*?  You need to be
>able to create annotations w/o necessarily having a method to attach
>them to.
>
>I tried a VirtualService but it was even worse. To remedy I decided to
>use Symbol instead since we typically use those to reference methods
>(perhaps even better would be a sublclass MethodName < Symbol).
>Unfortunately without a built in Binding.of_caller it's not very good
>either :-(. So I ended up just storing them in a hash in the
>class/module they belong to.
>
>Anyway, the point is that annotations are better if they can exist on
>their own too --as _potental annotations_, if you will. Something to
>consider.
>
>T.
>  
>
 From the replies I got so far, it seems as though "clean solutions" 
involving method objects are too inefficient. Though I don't know why or 
even if it is so. Can you post some code showing your annotations 
addition you did for Nitro?

Steve Tuckner

>
>
>  
>