--1926193751-376386811-12309148131697
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1926193751-376386811-1230914813=:31697"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--1926193751-376386811-12309148131697
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Hi --

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Tom Link wrote:

>>  ¨ÂïäõìÍùÇóõâÂáîç
>>  ¨Âåæ çóõ⡨ªáòçó¬ ¦âìïãë>>  ¨Âõðåò¨ªáòçó¦âìïãëüü óåìæ
>>  ¨Âîä
>>  ¨Âîä
>>
>>  ¨Âôò ¢áâ㢮åøôåîä¨ÍùÇóõâÂáîç©
>
> str += "1"
>
> This would return a normal string. You'd then have to extend those
> strings again and again. Please correct me if I'm wrong but IMHO this
> approach brings little advantage over defining a subclass of String:
>
> class MyString < String
>    ...
> end
>
> str = MyString.new("abc")
>
> This creates a copy of "abc" in this particular case but provides IMHO
> more flexibility. With some extra work you could catch those cases
> where the function returns a new string, eg something in the line of:
>
> class MyString < BasicObject
>
>    YOUR METHODS HERE
>
>    def method_missing(...)
>        ...
>    end
>
> end
>
> The extra indirection has its drawbacks of course.

If you're really finding it necessary to create a whole class and a
method_missing apparatus to make gsub! chainable, it's probably a sign
something needs to be rethought :-) Part of the point of the #extend
technique is that it requires pin-pointing what you actually need --
that is, which objects have to do what -- so it's definitely not the
same kind of solution as subclassing and/or changing existing classes.

> The conclusion IMHO is twofold: (1) "monkey patching" is ok if you're
> the only user of your code (in which case it is okay to use a silly
> name for that practice) or if the extensions are part of a well
> documented supplementary library/framework where those extended
> methods become some sort of standard. (2) Beware of people who are
> proud of their monkey tactics.

I wouldn't change gsub! globally even if I'm the only user of my code,
because it's more a question of what other code *I* use (core Ruby
code, other libraries). They may be using gsub! as documented. (And of
course that's just one example.)


David

-- 
David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC
Ruby/Rails consulting & training: http://www.rubypal.com
Coming in 2009: The Well-Grounded Rubyist (http://manning.com/black2)

http://www.wishsight.com => Independent, social wishlist management!
--1926193751-376386811-12309148131697--
--1926193751-376386811-12309148131697--