On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 07:49:45PM +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
> 
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:10 , Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 05:18:50PM +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:43 , Chad Perrin wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 06:31:38PM +0900, Gunther Diemant wrote:
> >>>>> You're right, that's much better -- apart from the fact I have yet to
> >>>>> come up with a single good reason for dynamic class names.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Test cases in a dsl test language like MiniTest/Spec or RSpec
> >>>> 
> >>>> describe "Foo" do
> >>>> end
> >>>> #=> Class FooTest < MiniTest::TestCase
> >>> 
> >>> Why is that better than storing unnamed classes in a hash with keys for
> >>> the "names" instead of actually, dynamically assigning names to new
> >>> hashes?
> >> 
> >> [...]
> > 
> > So . . . you are not only a trollish jackass, but also deficient in your
> > understanding of English.  Thanks for the update.
> 
> Yes, I'm obviously deficient in my understanding of English... You're welcome.
> 
> Why compare "storing [things] in a hash" with "dynamically [storing
> (other?) things] to new hashes"?

I just realized there was a typo of sorts in what I said.  In the above
quoted text, the latter usage of "hashes" should be "classes".

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]