------art_30531_6900240.1168030642215
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/5/07, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Robert Dober wrote:
> > I guess meta-programming shall be harder until to the point where you
> > insert
> >
> > require 'metakit'
> >
> > into your programming, what about that idea?
>
> Could be a great one! My only concern is that having both the normal
> #send, etc. and the meta-forms (whatever the syntax) could lead to some
> sort of conflict that will defeat the purpose of even havnig a
> "metakit". I may be totally wrong about that though --it's just a "gut"
> worry.


I learned to respect your instincts, so this is probably an issue, but  do
you not think that it  is as a matter of fact an issue which a metakit would
rather reduce than augment?
I imagine everything wrapped up in a module and some tricky mechanism in
metakit to allow to play some tricks with this module.

1st thought:
---------------
require 'metakit'

anObject.send  # still the old one
meta_import :send
anObject.send  # the new one
anObject.__orig_send # the old one, but this is somehow a snake biting
itself into its tail, I guess I read you better now!!

Scoping sometimes makes things clearer what about

2nd thought
---------------
require 'matakit'

meta_import :send do
### even meta_import :send Object, :blah Kernel do ....
   anObject.send  # the new one :)
end
anObject.send  # the old one :)

Cheers
Robert

> T.
>
>
>
-- 
"The real romance is out ahead and yet to come. The computer revolution
hasn't started yet. Don't be misled by the enormous flow of money into bad
defacto standards for unsophisticated buyers using poor adaptations of
incomplete ideas."

- Alan Kay

------art_30531_6900240.1168030642215--