Re: Scoping and locating definitions

On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:13:15AM +0900, Nicolas Desprs wrote:
> On 1/20/07, Jos Backus <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 02:18:19AM +0900, Jos Backus wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 06:40:03PM +0900, Pit Capitain wrote:
> >> > Jos Backus schrieb:
> >> > >(...)
> 
> [...]
> 
> >
> >As an aside, a while ago I ran into the fact that Process is a built-in 
> >class
> >whereas I wanted my own class to be named Process instead, given that I 
> >wasn't
> >going to use the built-in Process class anyway.
> 
> Maybe, you can copy the Process class to ProcessOriginal and then
> extend the Process class to fit your desired behavior. (I don't now
> how to "dup" a class : maybe the dup method do the job ; I haven't
> checked)
 
Well, it's not there there is no workaround (I called it AProcess) but I
shouldn't have to. I'd rather specify what I need in the first place, it
avoids conflicts like these in the first place.

Part of a possible solution would be to use modules as namespaces, e.g.
Std::Kernel::Process.

> >Perhaps it would be better if Ruby made less classes available without
> >require'ing them (maybe limited to a set of primitives). So to get what one
> >has today one would say
> >
> 
> The ruby-core is already small. I think it's hard to split it in
> several sub groups and starting doing that is the first step to an
> unless sub grouping...

I don't agree. The Java core is much smaller; it perhaps would make for a good
precedent/model to follow.

Thanks for the input, Nicolas.

Cheers,
-- 
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com