Hi --

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality wrote:

>
> "Martin DeMello" <martindemello / gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f93a6bcc0608210510j438b2d58l1d485c707810f571 / mail.gmail.com...
>> On 8/21/06, Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb / nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> Martin DeMello wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/06, Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb / nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can do this automatically (if you aren't already) by creating an
>>>> object that holds a hash and an array, defines []=, each and delete to
>>>> do the right thing, and delegates missing methods to the hash.
>>>
>>> Hmmm... good idea.  I've largely missed out on the
>>> whole method_missing idiom.  Sounds like a good use.
>>>
>>> I'll try to look into it after I return from JPL next
>>> week.  However, if you'd like to throw down an example,
>>> I might be able to work it in now...
>>
>> Quick proof of concept:
>>
>> require 'enumerator'
>>
>> class OHash
>>  include Enumerable
>>
>> ...
>>
>>  def method_missing(*args)
>>    @h.send(*args)
>>  end
>> end
>
>    Is there a reason why you don't simply inheret from Hash, or is this
> just another one of those There's More Than One Way To Do It scenarios?

You mean TMTOTMTOWTDIS? :-)


David

-- 
http://www.rubypowerandlight.com => Ruby/Rails training & consultancy
   ----> SEE SPECIAL DEAL FOR RUBY/RAILS USERS GROUPS! <-----
http://dablog.rubypal.com        => D[avid ]A[. ]B[lack's][ Web]log
http://www.manning.com/black     => book, Ruby for Rails
http://www.rubycentral.org       => Ruby Central, Inc.