From: Austin Ziegler <Austin.Ziegler@...>
Date: 2004-05-29T05:02:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Calling global method

>> Does Ruby *need* globals, especially given that Kernel already
>> exists?
> Kernel is just another way of saying global. How you implement
> globals doesn't change the concept of globals itself. Whether
> they're held in a nameless or named space, they're still globals.

*shrug* I find that, with the exception of three methods I use
almost as keywords (block_given?, puts, raise), I don't tend to use
what's in Kernel.

> But it seems to me that Kernel ended up being the global namespace
> after a couple paradigm changes, and there isn't much consistency
> about them. Some globals are private members of Object and some
> are in Kernel. You can access global variables anywhere using $,
> but you can't access all global methods from anywhere. You can
> access Kernel::method globals, if they're in Kernel, but if
> they're a private member of Object, you have to perform some
> strange tricks.

There is consistency, though. If it's defined as a method in Kernel,
then it's available "publicly" through Kernel. If it's defined by
you, the user, then it's a private member method of the Object
class. Since the execution context of all programs is through an
instance of Object, those items that look like globals aren't.

> It would be nice of all globals were wrapped up in a Global
> module, so you could access them directly from anywhere. Variables
> could still be sugared with $, and methods could be sugared with
> ::.

*shrug* Again, I don't find the idea useful.

-austin
--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com