Robert Klemme wrote in post #960467:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:52 AM, David Unric <dunric29a / gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 09:35:26 Temp$ ruby19 -e 'class X;end;X.const_set("Foo"+"Bar",123);p
> X::FooBar'
> 123
>
> Any tool trying to statically find X::FooBar would be lost yet the
> code is perfectly legal and error free.
>
> It's worse with methods since the you additionally get the inheritance
> chain as an additional, orthogonal dimension for lookups.
>
> Kind regards
>
> robert

I'm saying it from the start I don't expect the static checker would 
throw positive warnings in 100% of cases. You demonstrated one example. 
I know it depends on the programming style but I dare to claim such kind 
of generic constant/variable creation is less frequent and so the static 
checker would cover larger subset of cases. After a brief lookup to a 
sample of standard Ruby libraries (written in Ruby, not in C) I didn't 
find a class where a constant/variable/method name is generated "on the 
fly" as you've pointed out. So false warnnings needn't to be too much.

Take care

David

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