From: Mathieu Bouchard Date: 2005-04-18T01:03:20+09:00 Subject: Re: method search rule in 2.0? ---1077017559-2089278202-1113753095=:18757 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1077017559-2089278202-1113753095=:18757" This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---1077017559-2089278202-1113753095=:18757 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, David Garamond wrote: > http://pub.cozmixng.org/~the-rwiki/rw-cgi.rb?cmd=3Dview;name=3DRuby2.0Met= hodSearchRuleEnglish > CC.new.process # C#process expects C#util, > # but calls CC#util > Why is this a problem? Isn't it what people expect in OO? I'm not an OO= =20 > expert, but isn't this one of the supposedly unique feature/benefit of OO= :=20 > allowing old code to call new code. I believe it's called polymorphism? > Now Ruby2 wants to change so that 'util' in C method calls C#util and=20 > 'self.util' calls CC#util. I very much prefer 'self.util' to be the one t= hat=20 > calls C#util (and I don't think I'll ever use it a lot). The latter is=20 > backwards compatible and how virtually all other languages behave. I want neither util() nor self.util() to call C's util directly, and if=20 either change passes, then I *will* reconsider my five-year relationship=20 with Ruby. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of code that this=20 change would break anyway, so I can't imagine Matz making that change=20 either. ,-o---------o---------o---------o-. ,----. | | The Diagram is the Program (TM) | | ,-o----------------------------o-. `-o-----------------------------o-' | | Mathieu Bouchard (Montr=E9al QC)= | | |---' | http://artengine.ca/matju | | | `-o------------------------------' ---1077017559-2089278202-1113753095=:18757-- ---1077017559-2089278202-1113753095=:18757--