From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2004-06-09T05:23:20+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Ruby/Interface

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:46:30AM +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> Ruby/Interface tries to solve this problem by ???tagging??? objects as 
> implementing an interface. The implementation is enforced by comparing an 
> object???s methods against the methods expected by the interface.

Some comments:

I see you're using per-class tagging, hence being unable to track
changes in the singleton class. I'd point you again to the last sections
of http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/102555
which I believe you didn't read.
There's an inconsistency in the code: you're checking the methods of the
object (including its singleton methods) with Object#method but storing
the result in a per-class structure; that won't fly.

Also, using class variables instead of class instance variables ties the 
notion of interface to inheritance, which I believe you wanted to avoid.

I would consider storing the conformance information in
ROBJECT(self)->klass directly; this will be either the real class or
the singleton class. In the first case, the "conformity table" is
shared by all objects of that class; in the second, it will be "owned"
by the object. The advantage is that this new table would be created
on demand, only when the object is extended/a singleton method is
defined and has_interface? is called. You wouldn't even need to capture
singleton_method_added this way.

-- 
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

<miguel> any new sendmail hole I have to fix before going on vacations?
	-- Seen on #Linux