good points, quite right. your notions did make me rethink and...

i think i found a solution. instead of assocciating a widget to the name
of a variable, as i had been thinking, instead i must associate it to
the object itself. thus instead of the name, i will simply use the id.

thanks guys!

~transami


On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 01:40, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Sawyer" <transami / transami.net>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 2:23 AM
> Subject: Re: #name of instance
> 
> 
> > opps, slight typo. not bob, but bobo:
> > 
> > class A
> >   def myname
> >     puts self.name  # ?
> >   end
> > end
> > 
> > bobo = A.new
> > bobo.myname   # OOPS
> > 
> > producing:
> > 
> > bobo
> 
> Without some tremendous gyrations,
> it's just not possible.
> 
> Remember that a variable is just a
> reference to an object. 
> 
> First of all, an object has no way 
> of knowing what variable might 
> reference it. 
> 
> Second, there could be any number
> of variables referencing the same
> object.
> 
>   toto = gogo = bobo = A.new
>   toto.myname  # Logically, all three
>   gogo.myname  # of these must produce
>   bobo.myname  # the same result.
> 
> Thirdly, there might be no variable
> at all referencing the object.
> 
>   A.new.myname # What now?
> 
> So unless you're prepared to do some
> weird things to associate a name with
> an object when it's created, there's
> just no way. Even if you *do* that, 
> there are still shortcomings.
> 
> Perhaps time to rethink.
> 
> If you're not familiar with how Symbols
> work in Ruby, go look that up. That 
> might give you some ideas.
> 
> Cheers,
> Hal
> 
> 
> 
-- 
~transami

  _(")_  dobee dobee do...
   \v/  
   ^ ^