From: Eric Hodel Date: 2005-08-21T14:34:46+09:00 Subject: Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods On 20 Aug 2005, at 18:14, TRANS wrote: > On 8/20/05, Austin Ziegler wrote: > >> On 8/20/05, TRANS 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. The difference lies in how many characters I have to type to get the same effect, and how ugly it looks. It sounds like I'd have to type more and introduce more ugly. > 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 :-) That sounds like far to many characters to type. I've found that needing to use cut & paste to make changes to code tells me something is very wrong with my code or my language. -- Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04