From: itsme213 <itsme213@...>
Date: 2005-01-26T02:11:02+09:00
Subject: Re: top-level object? top-level methods?


"Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote in message
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: top-level object? top-level methods?"
>     on Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:07:19 +0900, Pit Capitain <pit@capitain.de>
writes:
>
> |I like this proposal. Would there be any drawbacks?
>
> 1. Compatibility.  It would break a lot of code, which assume
>    top-level def can be seen from everywhere.

A compatibility mode perhaps :-)

class Object
    def method_missing sym, *args, &block
        if Main.respond_to? sym
            Main.send sym, *args, &block
        else normal_method_missing_stuff
    end
end

> 2. Mindset.  I feel above assumption is natural.

With the option of using modules and includes, I am not sure the namespace
pollution is worth it. I do fully agree with one of the original goals of
making procedural programmers quite at home, and don't think this approach
would sacrifice that goal.

I find myself throwing in top-level methods when in a rush, when it is
convenient, I don't need multiple instances, etc. But I don't think I ever
throw them in with the _intent_ of calling them from anywhere. Of course,
because they are currently callable from anywhere, code will end up using it
that way.