Robert Klemme wrote:
> Plus, what would you do in this case?
> 
> a=[SomeClass.new]

Actually, in this case it's not so bad.  The variable "a" refers to the 
array (so you're not interested in the array contents) so you can use 
similar methods on local variables to get it's name, then do:

eval var

on each local variable to see if the object returned is your original 
one, just not easily in a method as local variables are now in a 
different scope, albeit the scope of the caller (and being very, very 
careful about exceptions and side effects).  What really made me cringe 
was:

a = nil

Now what?

That's when I went and opened a bottle of wine and watched a movie.

I agree 100% though that the real issue here is that Jeff wants the name 
of an object to be an attribute and the best way to do that is to, well, 
make the name an attribute.

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