From: gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
Date: 2001-03-13T03:01:35+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:12518] Re: Math package

In message "[ruby-talk:12513] Re: Math package"
    on 01/03/13, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@zetabits.com> writes:
>|>I don't get the point.  Math is too broad word for the libm functions?
>|
>|Yes, it is.  And that would show an example of hierarchy in a module. 
>
>I still don't get the point of your second statement.  Having both
>Math::sin() and Math::Libm::sin() would not be a good example.
>I think you have something untold in your mind.

I'm sorry for too short words.  

At first, I would propose replacing Math::sin() with Math::Libm::sin().
But this brings serious backward incompatibility.  Then, I thought
(unwillingly) not only replacing but including in to Math.  However, it
is not what I want as you said.  Another option I hit on is rename Math 
to Num.  Anyway, something incompatible can't be avoid...

-- Gotoken