On Dec 17, 11:30 ¨Âí¬ ÒéãèáòÃïîòïù ¼òéãèáòä®ãïî®®®Àçíáéì®ãïí¾ ÷òïôåº
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Intransition <transf... / gmail.com> wrote:
> > So that's the idea. Getting back to the main question: What's the best
> > way to encapsulate information and behavior when there is no state?
>
> There's a bit of a contradiction here. To paraphrase what you said:
>
> What's the best
> way to encapsulate "State" and behavior when there is no state?
>
> If there is unique information captured in objects (encapsulation) you have
> state.

Sorry, by "information" I just meant constants (static information).

> You should look at modeling the system in a purely functional manner, butt
> is hard
> to see what you are attempting to do.

Maybe it will help if I explain how I got to this question. I started
with a set of classes that all had one attribute, using a base class:

  class UnitType
    attr :power
    # ... methods ...
  end

I had:

  class Meter < UnitType
    # ... override methods ...
  end

  class Second < UnitType
    # ... override methods ...
  end

  etc...

So each one was instantiated to track the power of a given unit. But
then I realized that it would be better to couple the type and power
via another class:

  class Unit
    def initialize(unit_type, power)
       @unit_type = unit_type
       @power      = power
    end
  end

And remove the power attribute from the UnitType class. Thus I was
left with a bunch of classes that had no state.