From: Florian Gilcher <flo@...>
Date: 2009-02-26T04:18:05+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:22492] Re: YASNP (Yet Another Selector Namespace Proposal)


On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> Florian Gilcher wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 6:17 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>>> I'm also in favor of discussing this, but all I hear so far in  
>>> opposition is vague FUD... no specific examples of problems that  
>>> could be caused. It would be a lot easier to have a lively  
>>> discussion about specific concerns, and I'd love to have it!
>>>
>>> -- Yehuda
>> Is FUD the new "the opposition doesn't convince me"? I hear it a  
>> lot. I think it's overused. Also, I find it insulting or at least a  
>> "verbal" fauxpas as well as misplaced[1].
>
> I think the FUD here is "oh no, what if this happens or that happens  
> and code gets more complicated!". You can what if any feature to  
> death, but without considering the probability of real issues it  
> really is FUD.
>
> And of course the "what iffers" may not be weighing those scenarios  
> against the positive uses of namespaces.

That may be true or not, but it is still against the rules of a good  
discussion to generally calling it FUD. Disprove the other or ignore  
him. Accept if he doesn't have your point of view. Tell him that he  
doesn't convince you. For me, that comment was ad hominem, because it  
also has generic implications about the others state of mind and  
behaviour.

>
>> The problem is rather obvious: suddently, I can have multiple  
>> definitions of a method (or none!) depending on context. Nowadays,  
>> i can just inspect/test that behaviour in IRB/rdb and be sure that  
>> it is about the same everywhere (safe for the unusual catch that it  
>> could be un/redefined along the way). With selector namespaces,  
>> that catch would get commonplace.
>
> You can't really control what any library decides to do today, so I  
> don't think you lose any more control with namespaces. And  
> monkeypatching code because you want *others* to be affected has  
> always been a losing proposition...since they may have monkeypatched  
> code to affect *you* already.

As i pointed out more then once: I am on the side of having  
namespaces, i just wanted to illustrate that it is not impossible to  
find things get more complex. But i was also not speaking about  
control but about making sense of a current and future state of a  
system at a given moment.

>
>> BTW: how will IRB handle file-based switches?
>
> It would need to have modifications to its parser logic to support  
> namespacing, just as it needed modifications to allow stabby lambdas  
> through.
>
> - Charlie

Well, thats for sure. Will it be able to switch namespaces, will it  
not? I wanted to raise the question, not imply that it is hard to  
answer.

Regards,
Florian

--
Florian Gilcher

smtp:   flo@andersground.net
jabber: Skade@jabber.ccc.de
gpg:    533148E2