From: "Benjamin J. Tilly" Date: 2001-03-14T09:57:59+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:12591] Re: Math package >===== Original Message From matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) ===== >Hi, > >In message "[ruby-talk:12504] Re: Math package" > on 01/03/13, GOTO Kentaro 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 think that the point of the second statement is that there are a broad enough variety of mathematical functions of interest that there should be hierarchy of modules from which you mixin the functions of interest. And some of these modules would inherit from others. Having an example of how you do that in a system library would be valuable if for no other reason than to give people learning Ruby an example of how you would use a hierarchy with multiple inheritance within modules. To me this sounds like a nice idea, but the fly in the ointment would be two-fold. One that proxying of proxying in a module hierarchy would be slow. The second problem is that I suspect that coming up with a good hierarchy that cuts the universe of widely used useful mathematical functions would be hard. Cheers, Ben ------------------------------------------- The Fastest Browser on Earth now for FREE!! Download Opera 5 for Windows now! Get it at http://www.opera.com/download/ -------------------------------------------