>>>>> "S" == Sean Russell <ser / efn.org> writes:

S> You'd have to define your classes in such a way that your initialize() 
S> comes before your attr_initializer statement.

 This is the first problem.

 The second problem is that you can't give argument do #__initialize_more__

S>  Maybe there's a way around this. 

 The biggest problem, for me, is that attr_{reader,writer,accessor} are
 *optimizations* (and not only shortcup)

 attr_initializer (why this long name, rather than attr_init. Why make the
 same error than for #initialize ?) can be an optimization if it don't take
 a block, or try to call a method.

S> Anyway, doing it would mean only introducing one new concept
S> (attr_initializer) rather than two (attr_initializer and
S> initialize_more). 

 Why don't you write an extension (it's really easy) to test it and see if
 it's really *usefull* ?


Guy Decoux