Remove special case for id, type, and object_id

[jch]

Mash overrides the definitions of these core object methods to allow users to
have keys with these names. While it works at first glance, this encourages
bad code that will eventually come back and bite the user. Possible weird
behaviors include:

• garbage collection object_id
• object identity comparison
• object type comparison

I won't merge this into the 1.x series since it's a breaking change, but I
plan to merge this after releasing 1.3

cc @mbleigh

[jch]

On second thought, I don't want to deal with releasing a 1.3 since the last release was so long ago. I'd rather just release 2.0.0

[mbleigh]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this...as unfortunate as it is, id and type are going to be pretty common fields in an API data return (one of Mash's most common use cases). My understanding is that as of Ruby 1.9 the #id method isn't defined on Object (or Hash for that matter). Same goes for type. I'm not really interested in being particularly friendly to Ruby 1.8.x at this point...thoughts?

[jch]

Cool with id and type. What about object_id?

[mbleigh]

I'm ok with object_id requiring a special case since I've never seen that in an API response.

[jch]

Closing b/c only 1.8 whines about this. There may be a workaround to silence the warning If someone's interested in making a pull, I'd be happy to review it.

[skipchris]

Hi guys,

Sorry if I've misunderstood the comment that "only 1.8 whines about this", but running our test suite under 1.9.3 I'm seeing:

/Users/chris/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p194@sage_one/gems/hashie-2.0.0/lib/hashie/mash.rb:80: warning: redefining object_id' may cause serious problems`

If this is the case (and I'm not being stupid - feel free to correct me if I am), does it make sense to just merge a version of this PR which just removes object_id but leaves id and type?

[jch]

@skipchris that sounds reasonable to me. If someone does want to override object_id, it'd be easy to do so by reopening the class or making their own subclass. Want to send up a quick pull?

[skipchris]

Yup, will do - just wanted to check I wasn't missing something!

[matschaffer]

@skipchris @jch feel free to use #81 if it helps.

[skipchris]

:D