From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-06-09T05:52:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Interfaces and semantics (or, how to hashpipe a duck)

On Tuesday 08 June 2004 13:05, David A. Black wrote:
> 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.

I will when I have a suitable alternative.

	Sean O'Dell