From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-06-09T05:05:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Interfaces and semantics (or, how to hashpipe a duck)

Hi --

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Sean O'Dell wrote:

> On Tuesday 08 June 2004 11:23, Daniel Berger wrote:
> > "Sean O'Dell" <sean@celsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:<200406080736.32485.sean@celsoft.com>...
> >
> > > On Tuesday 08 June 2004 06:04, Daniel Berger wrote:
> > > > "Sean O'Dell" <sean@celsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > I published an "interface" module a short while back.  You can find it
> > > > on the RAA or at:
> > >
> > > Mine looks pretty close to how yours works except it verifies the number
> > > of method arguments.  Whenever a method is added or removed, the
> > > compliance flag is lowered so the next time has_interface? is called, a
> > > complete check is re-done to be sure the object still complies.  Is yours
> > > written in C?  One thing I wanted was for this to have as little overhead
> > > as possible, so I didn't feel like I was slowing down my project too much
> > > by calling it everywhere.
> > >
> > > 	Sean O'Dell
> >
> > It's pure Ruby.  I don't think adding arity checks and hooks for
> > method_added/method_removed would be difficult.
> 
> Probably wouldn't, but I just finished mine and it's released, and it's in C.  
> I don't know what to do about the name clash.  I can't think of another name 
> that works as well, and I have to move on to some actual work here.

It's hard to think of a name that works *less* well, since this one
clashes with an already-available package.  I hope you'll consider
renaming it, as a courtesy to Dan and to reduce confusion by potential
users.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net