From: Aleksei Guzev <aleksei.guzev@...>
Date: 2001-06-27T22:23:03+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:16967] Re: Method overloading (option) Was: Re:

The following is right.

# -----Original Message-----
# From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng [mailto:hgs@dmu.ac.uk] 
# Sent: 27 ???? 2001 ?. 18:43
# To: ruby-talk ML
# Subject: [ruby-talk:16965] Re: Method overloading (option) Was: Re:
# 
# 
# On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
# 
# > I admint explicit dispatch based on type often comes first to mind. 
# > But I think things go better if we design programs based on 
# protocols 
# > (i.e. based on set of methods that objects can respond).
# 
# I think this is because people "encapsulate" the collection 
# of methods that something will respond to as being a type.  A 
# problem of listing methods and testing 
# thing.responds_to?(aMethod) is that as your code makes use of 
# more methods as it grows, you have to add them to the tests.  
# Because of modules, an object with given type may have 
# methods mixed in, so type() tests are inadequate anyway. So 
# what do you see as the elegant, ruby way of overcoming this 
# problem?  Are you saying there is a way without dispatching 
# on type or on "responds_to?", when you talk about protocols?  
# Or are you saying there is a good way to collect the 
# "responds_to?" tests together, neatly?
# > 
# > 							matz.
# > 
# 	Hugh
# 

Ruby has already everything to determine what the behaves like.

Aleksei