Comments for I'm Probably Corey

Comment on POW! by elliottcable

elliottcable — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:07:13 +0000

Ack, just noticed you already have something similar in place!

Also, you might wanna let commenters use that sexy code-box you have set up. My comment looks fuuuugly on my end.

Comment on POW! by elliottcable

elliottcable — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:06:23 +0000

As stolen from various of my projects. Feel free to hack some out of it, should simplify your argument structs.

class File module Pathize def / other File.join(self.to_s, other.to_s) end end


  Extensions = %r=^(markdown|textile|haml|sass|css|html|xhtml|rb|txt|text|atom|rss|xml)$=i

  module Extension

    def method_missing(meth, *args)

      if Extensions =~ meth.to_s

        [self, '.', meth.to_s].join

      else

        super

      end

    end

  end

end

class String include File::Extension include File::Pathize end class Symbol include File::Extension include File::Pathize end

Then you should be able to do…

Pow(:tmp / :sub_dir / :file.txt) do |file| # All the stuff you usually do with an open file! file.read end

Comment on POW! by Nome do Jogo » Artigo » Rails Podcast Brasil - Epis�dio 15

Nome do Jogo » Artigo » Rails Podcast Brasil - Epis�dio 15 — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:48:45 +0000

[...] POW! [...]

Comment on Abusing Ruby’s question mark methods. by Tiago Albineli Motta

Tiago Albineli Motta — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:12:50 +0000

Very funny :)

Comment on Abusing Ruby’s question mark methods. by Rails Podcast Brasil - Epis�dio 12

Rails Podcast Brasil - Epis�dio 12 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:30:51 +0000

[...] Abusing Ruby�s question mark methods. [...]

Comment on Abusing Ruby’s question mark methods. by Mr eel

Mr eel — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:51:34 +0000

I suggest just writing not_*? methods and mixing them into the appropriate classes.

Metaprogramming trix are nice, but this more complicated than it needs to be IMO.

Comment on Abusing Ruby’s question mark methods. by Robin

Robin — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:00:15 +0000

Oh sweet, sweet syntactic sugar… beautiful stuff! This will certainly go into my library of little ruby tidbits that I use for all my projects in some shape or form. Thanks for sharing the idea with us!

Comment on Abusing Ruby’s question mark methods. by Emmanuel Oga

Emmanuel Oga — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:22:45 +0000

I like a similar trick but using non_* and only_* methods… This could be done using a proxy object like yours (a cleaner implementation?) This is how I use it:

{{{
Enumerable.class_eval do
alias_method :original_method_missing, :method_missing

def method_missing(symbol, *args)
if symbol.to_s =~ /(non|only)_(.*)/
prefix, question = Regexp.last_match[1], Regexp.last_match[2]

operation = (prefix == “non”) ? “reject” : “select”

self.class.class_eval(<<-NEW_METHOD, __FILE__, __LINE__)
def #{ symbol }
#{ operation } { |obj| obj.#{ question }? }
end
NEW_METHOD

send(symbol)
else
original_method_missing(symbol, *args)
end
end
end

Numeric.class_eval do
def even?
(self % 2) == 0
end
end

puts (1..10).only_even # 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
}}}

Comment on Abusing Ruby’s question mark methods. by trans

trans — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:19:39 +0000

Facets Functor class is desinged for these types of structures. It is the Higher Order Message pattern.

class Object
def not
Functor.new do |op, *args|
!__send__(op,*args)
end
end
end

Add @_not ||= Functor.new … to optimize.

Probably that it’s a keyword doesn’t matter b/c it will always be used in a fluent (dot) notation.

Comment on Abusing Ruby’s question mark methods. by coderrr

coderrr — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:17:10 +0000

Cool!

This kinda reminds me of my either/both:
http://coderrr.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/either-or-both-a-cool-way-to-simplify-conditionals/

You could even chain them! :P

@Levi, using a bridge (proxy) object as he did is a way better (safer) approach than overwriting method_missing on Object.