From: Jeremy McAnally <jeremymcanally@...>
Date: 2008-12-05T14:05:50+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:20357] Re: Leave my open classes alone (was Behavior: autoload calls rb_require() directly)

Soooo basically you're advocating a Python-like object tree, which is
the single trait about Python's language features that makes me burn
with rage.

"Hey we're totally dynamic OO broo ha ha from top-to-bottom!!
Except...er...these few things...and uh...well there are these other
things too...that...don't really...uh...go in the same box..."

--Jeremy

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 6:56 pm, Paul Brannan <pbran...@atdesk.com> wrote:
>
>> Ruby is also about expressiveness and readability.  Often having too
>> many choices affects culture in undesirable ways.  Perl's motto of
>> "there's more than one way to do it" actually decreases readability
>> rather than improving it.
>>
>> I'm all for choice, but not without weighing the consequences.  In the
>> particular case of Fixnum#+, I feel the cost outweighs the benefit.
>
> Think out loud a bit here... Needless to say I'm in the camp of
> maximum openness. I believe it is *the* feature that distinguishes
> Ruby, and I think David Black's comment was very elegantly put.
>
> But as Charles has suggested, maybe we can have our cake and eat it
> too?
>
> What if every class had a "Kernel" parent, in the same way that Object
> has Kernel (though these "Kernels" might instead be super classes
> instead of modules, I'm not sure which is best).  While the class
> itself can be overridden, the "Kernels" cannot. If the class is
> overridden, a flag is set so one can easily check. Likewise Kernel
> itself would be locked down, but Object still open.
>
> Would something like that do the trick?
>
> T.
>
>



-- 
http://jeremymcanally.com/
http://entp.com/
http://omgbloglol.com

My books:
http://manning.com/mcanally/
http://humblelittlerubybook.com/ (FREE!)