On 3/5/07, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 5, 1:19 pm, dbl... / wobblini.net wrote:
> > Hi --
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Trans wrote:
> > > I think Richard Feynman said it best, "never underestimate the power
> > > of notation", or something like that.
> >
> > I don't underestimate it -- I just don't like the idea of decisions
> > being made about naming on the basis of membership in a category like
> > "metaprogramming".
>
> I think you are though, becuase beloging to this category isn't the
> basis. That just happens to be the case. The basis is the beneficial
> effect that the naming would have on coding, in particular the effect
> on method_missing and privatizing or removing all methods that don't
> start with instance_ and object_, as well as the effect it would have
> on one's ability to more easily learn and use Ruby.

Have another look at the thread. Daniel was adducing
metaprogramming-ness as a reason for naming methods a certain way, not
something that happens to be the case.  I was discussing this and
expressing misgivings about that approach.

In any case, you're talking about metaprogramming operations *on*
method names (removing them, using method_missing), which is different
from the matter of naming methods because what those methods do is
metaprogramming. I think that, too, is a tricky road to travel.  I'd
rather see each method have the best possible name, since it's going
to be used more as a method than as a string to be matched for method
removal purposes and so forth. Moreover, it's very hard to predict
exactly which batch of methods someone is going to want to remove;
they may or may not all fall into a secondary category like
metaprogramming.


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
   (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)