Hi,

At Sat, 21 Sep 2002 03:45:02 +0900,
Ryan King wrote:
> Another thing, and this may not only be off-the-wall but also
> YAGNI in the highest, but I've often wanted caller(-1).
> 
> That's right folks: An object that represents the current method
> invocation.
> 
> One example of the potential is caller(-1).variables, which could
> return a hash representing all the local variables.

It sounds like as local_variables.

> Then, we'd have the ability to mechanically extract methods, for
> free.
> 
> But maybe we don't need that because we never leave our code to
> get so poorly factored that we'd need something like this.

It doesn't feel to me useful, nor "factored."

-- 
Nobu Nakada