From: TRANS <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-08-21T10:14:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods

On 8/20/05, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/20/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One could argue that no methods should be redefinable. That classes
> > ought to be subclassed if they are to change at all. I think there is
> > good support for this. Furthermore, if there is such a thing as a
> > proper means of class alternation it is surely AOP.
> 
> But then one isn't arguing about Ruby, but something that I wouldn't
> want to use.

No, why would that be? If you can achieve the same things, where would
the difference lie? In other words, if you couldn't _redefine_
methods, but you could _wrap_ them, the end effect would be the same.

And remember you can still subclass and override. And if you really
have a lot of heavy changes to make, well, then its probably the right
time to get out the old Cut & Paste :-)

T.


T.