Re: [Swig-user] Redefining "set_x" methods as Ruby write accessors

[Charlie S. <cf...@in...>]

Agree with your point William.  I'll take out the code in ruby.cxx and 
replace it with a macro as you suggest.

Charlie

William S Fulton wrote:
> nerochiaro wrote:
>>>> Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind the choice to have
>>>> separate directives for %bang and %predicate in ruby ?
>>>> If I understand correctly one could just use %rename with quotes to
>>>> add the question/exclamation mark to ruby method names.
>>> Well, the %bang method is probably not very useful (due to my
>>> misunderstanding of %rename).  Perhaps it should be removed (it was 
>>> just
>>> added in a couple of weeks ago).
>>>
>>> The %predicate method is a bit more useful since it sticks in a 
>>> check at
>>> the end to ensure that a boolean value is returned (see the 
>>> documentation
>>> for more info).
>>
>> Oh i see. I didn't know about the check on the return value. It makes
>> sense then.
>> As for removing bang, well, it doesn't make much of a difference.
>> It's just two ways of doing the same thing (%bang and %rename). Not a
>> bad thing probably, as long as both are properly documented.
>>
>>
> Personally, I'd rather see just one way to solve a problem to keep 
> things simple. Many solutions are solved using basic SWIG building 
> blocks and all that is required is to document the solution in the 
> documentation. If %bang is just a form of %rename and you really want 
> to keep %bang, then I suggest implementing %bang as a macro using 
> %rename, rather than having extra code in ruby.cxx to handle this.
>
> William
>
>