Catchall proposal

Faisal Vali faisalv at
Sun May 17 13:17:54 PDT 2009

> Subject: Re: Catchall proposal
> David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> To flesh this out a bit more, I propose the following handlers:
>  has(id)
>  hasMissing(id)
>  get(id)
>  getMissing(id)
>  set(id, val)
>  setMissing(id, val)
>  invoke(id, args)
>  invokeMissing(id, args)
>  delete(id)
>  call(args)
>  new(args)

Would it be worth splitting the above into two separate proposals?

Proposal #1) Hooks for only missing actions.

Proposal #2) Pre/Post Hooks for existing actions.

I would expect that the goals for each of the two proposals would be
slightly different.

The focus of #1 would be to enhance the run-time metaprogramming facilities

The focus of #2 would be to enhance the security/correctness
(visibility, pre/post conditions, design by contract) of programs and
support aspect-oriented programming.

That way, one doesn't get mired by the other ;)

Any thoughts? (i.e. are these two proposals far too intertwined to
separate them)

Faisal Vali
Radiation Oncology

More information about the es-discuss mailing list