From: TRANS <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-09-24T16:18:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Mutually dependent libs double loading.

On 9/24/05, Mathieu Bouchard <matju@artengine.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, TRANS wrote:
> > Indeed! I had mistakenly thought that Object's methods were tied to
> > "self", while Kernel methods were independent and thus could be/were
> > module_function. Obviously I was wrong, so now I must agree with your
> > analysis.
>
> Well, that's the impression that I too got from reading the Pickaxe, and
> although it would've been nice to have them methods organised according to
> that scheme, it doesn't have much to do with the actual situation.
>
> And now something completely different: I am now coding quite a bit of Tcl
> these days, and I have implemented my own OOP system, and it already
> supports mixins/super just like Ruby, except it doesn't distinguish
> between classes and modules, because it doesn't need to. This is part of
> the DesireData project, whose goal is to rewrite the GUI of the PureData
> language in a cleaner way.
>
> I am still coding in Ruby. My latest sizeable chunk of code was used for
> coordinating the eight computers in the interactive video installation
> exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Arts of Montr�al (for Alexandre
> Castonguay) which opened two days ago:
>
>   http://www.macm.org/fr/index.html
>
> (Ruby also does a few other things in that exhibition, but it's not new
> code at all)

Nice!