Chris said:
Oh. My. God.
I can't believe you just asked that.
[...]
of course.
and I got the concise and compact answer.
Which led me to the simple solution.
[btw: the thread "[ANN] Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly" came 2
weeks after my initial thread. But the documentation is anyway to complex.]
Well, see the thread
http://groups-beta.google.com/group..._frm/thread/dccac368e450ee18/d1e9611e8ac14dd1
and browse it 'till 8th post (which is avaiable separately as
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/3aa2dbdfa6fbdbd5
).
This shows that you got your concise and compact answer already on 5th
of April, more than two weeks before. And no trace of the big mess which
your thread evolved into appears at this point, so don't say you were
overwhelmed then.
And you got the same answer a zillion times since then, in zillion
different forms.
You were just too fcknuig lazy to take the effort of understanding these
answers (or ask properly if you don't succeed).
You seem to work in a way that you browse through the answers quickly;
upon doing so some of the sentences ring a bell, others not, and that's
it. You don't seem to give a second chance to the posts, rather iterate
the above procedure, by asking essentially the same again. Bad, bad.
I understand you don't wanna learn ruby just evaluate it, but the above
sketched work method doesn't seem to be fruitful in this case either.
And btw, concerning your "Meta" method implementation, get rid of the
"
@META ||=" part. It's not a gain in efficency, but a pain for the eye.
Csaba
