From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-04-10T05:49:21+09:00
Subject: Re: method search rule in 2.0?

Hi --

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Lionel Thiry wrote:

>> [I wrote:]

> That's different; that's a class method.
>
> In present ruby, yes, C::util is identical to C.util.
>
> But I was thinking of "C::util" as an explicit namespace 
> specification, not as a message sending to C object.
>
> You talked about adding some "#" new operator could be inadequate as 
> it is usually used for comments. I was just indicating "::" could do 
> the job.
>
>
>> 
>> These last two don't really fit the dot semantics, and if they're
>> alternatives to C::util, then they're dealing with a class method
>> anyway (rather than the issue of limiting the effect of overriding
>> instance methods).
>> 
>> My suggestion of C#util is based on the common use of # to mean
>> "instance method of the named class or module".  It wouldn't require
>> redefinition of the dot notation, nor overloading 'self' to be a
>> boolean flag (as in the original proposal, where 'self' means both
>> "the default object" and "don't redirect this to an overridden 
>> version
>> of the method).
>
> And what is your opinion, now, if you take for granted that "::" 
> semantic is redefined?

I think it's much too big a change for something like this.  It would
also lead to huge amounts of code breakage.  (I don't use :: for
method calls myself, but it's used a fair amount.)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net