by the way, this idea actually stems from an earlier desire to have
objects created by nested class definitions inherit their parent class
instance.

see: http://www.rubygarden.com/article.php?sid=236

just trying to solve the age old question:
  "are you my mother?" - p.d.eastman
okay, i just opened myself up to all sorts of trouble now.

~transami :-)


On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 05:31, Massimiliano Mirra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 07:49:09AM +0900, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> > no need to pass self and explicitly store it. so there's a fictional
> > example for you. in the real world there are many cases of such a
> > parent-child relationship. 
> 
> C'mon, for an object to be coupled to the one where it was created is
> still a specific case, not the general one.  I don't think that in
> `puts "hello, world"' you want the string to be coupled to the object.
> Instead I think you'll want the coupling to be as clear as possible to
> who reads the code, and both `x = X.new(self)' and `x.parent = self'
> do this pretty good, don't they?
> 
> Massimiliano
> 
-- 
~transami

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
 temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
	-- Benjamin Franklin