Um, thanks for all of the replies chaps. Most of it makes sense. In
essence all I wanted to do was speed things up and so the first method
 checked a server for something. 

All of the other methods check an instance variable, (from the
first method), and progress with more operations given the value of that
iv. 

Some of the methods __are__ long and that's why I asked if it was good
practice to ask if nested methods are used in the field. Would make
sense for smaller methods I guess but not for 70+ lines. 

Not tried closures yet - just got into profiling, tracing and
debugging to see how I can speed things up.

Many thanks for all of your insight. By the way - this Ruby stuff is
bloody addictive. Not been so excited for a long time, especially when
stuff "works". 

 - jjm


On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:22:04
+0900 "krusty.ar / gmail.com" <krusty.ar / gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 2, 2:00pm, ThoML <micat... / gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Y get it, it's as if each method defines a namespace, can
> > > youdosomething like a()::b() from ouside a?
> >
> > I'd say no. You'd probably have to ask this on a python list for
> > more details. I don't think this would make much sense though:
> >
> > --> def a(x, y):
> > ...   def b(z):
> > ...     return z * y
> > ...   return x * b(4)
> > ...
> > --> a(2, 3)
> > 24
> >
> > What should a::b(10) return if this were possible?
> 
> I was asking out of mere curiosity, but in any case it should be
> something like a(2,3)::b(4), but it probably doesn't make sense. With
> respect to de OP, I still find it a good practice, including your
> correction about the instance variable.
> 
> Lucas.
>