From: Daniel Brockman <daniel@...>
Date: 2005-07-29T13:30:48+09:00
Subject: Re: What's so special about operators, built-in classes and modules?

"Trans" <transfire@gmail.com> writes:

> matz wrote:
>
>> When they would do almost the same thing, and when mixin
>> inheritance is much simpler to understand (for me at
>> least), far easier to implement, why should I implement
>> multiple inheritance?
>
> If I may, I don't think you should implement MI.
> Yet neither do I think a differentiation between class and
> module is neccessary. I think this is the common point of
> view of those who think calss and module should be merged,
> but that view continuly gets lost in the MI talk. I'm all
> for Ruby's SI with mixins, but the effects ought to be in
> the usage, not in the name.

I think that's a very insightful way of putting it, and I
agree completely.  Except I still do not understand what the
term "multiple inheritance" means in Ruby circles.

Your examples make a good case for the unification, too.

-- 
Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>