[#5563] Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>

Lately, I've been thinking about the future of ruby

44 messages 2005/08/19
[#5564] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/08/19

On 8/19/05, Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@yahoo.com> wrote:

[#5571] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/08/19

--- Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5574] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — TRANS <transfire@...> 2005/08/20

Just wanted to add a few things.

[#5581] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...> 2005/08/20

On 8/19/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#5583] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/08/20

Hi --

[#5585] Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods — Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...> 2005/08/20

--- "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

[#5609] Pathname#walk for traversing path nodes (patch) — ES <ruby-ml@...>

Here is a small addition to Pathname against 1.9, probably suited

20 messages 2005/08/22

Re: Non-overridable and non-redefinable methods

From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2005-08-21 05:34:46 UTC
List: ruby-core #5596
On 20 Aug 2005, at 18:14, TRANS wrote:

> 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.

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


In This Thread