zdennis wrote:
> I had to think about half a second, and then type for about 8 seconds. 
> Just copy and paste the code and put it in a file that you
> require on your projects, and you won't have to think. I will think for 
> you. Matz is busy solving bigger problems and conquering
> better obstacles. So he doesn't have to think about this, I will put my 
> brain to work for him.
> 
>   class Class
>     def attr_class_accessor arg
>       instance_eval "class << self ; attr_accessor :#{arg} ; end"
>     end
> 
>     def attr_class_reader arg
>       instance_eval "class << self ; attr_reader :#{arg} ; end"
>     end
> 
>     def attr_class_writer arg
>       instance_eval "class << self ; attr_writer :#{arg} ; end"
>     end
>   end
> 
> If you feel this stronlgy about your desire to simplify this, perhaps 
> you should submit it as an RCR, http://www.rcrchive.net. I
> am not saying I think your idea to simplify this into a builtin part of 
> ruby is a bad thing, but I think that you should not
> abolish your ability to think. Ruby gives you power, use it. And if you 
> think it can be made better, submit a patch or submit an RCR.
> 
> Matz gives you the power to influence the langauge, I challenge you to 
> do so.

It's not so much that I feel strongly as much as that it perplexes me. I 
guess I just wanted to make sure my meds haven't been replaced with 
crazy pills.

I thought of this, too: isn't it odd that you can define class variables 
in a definition of how instances of a class should work, but you can't 
define their accessors? It seems inconsistent. If it's agreed that this 
is inconsistent, I'll post something to the site you mentioned, but if 
it's that way for a reason, I'll just take your much appreciated advice, 
learn that much more, and be that much less of a newbie.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.