From: Avdi Grimm <avdi@...>
Date: 2001-07-25T12:09:10+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:18499] Re: OO question

>     use 'byte_and_bit_access'   // ok - bad name
> 
> and String and Array would be augmented with unpack and
> pack.

Very interesting idea; it sounds like something I've been ruminating on
lately.  Ruby's ability to dynamicly extend classes at runtime seems to
lend itself to a new model for library inclusion.  I've always been
vaguely uneasy about constructs such as "Parsedate.parsedate()",
"Math.cos()", "Find.find()"... etc. in any of the languages in which
they are found.  It's repetetive; and it seems like a case of confusing
classes with namespaces to me.  Ruby on the other hand offers the unique
oportunity for libraries to dynamicly extend existing classes, rather
than adding pseudo-namespaces. So I could say "require 'ParseDate'"; and
the parsedate() method would be added to the Date class and/or the time
class. Or I could say "require 'Math'"; and the appropriate numeric
types would magicly acquire "cos()" and "log()" methods.

On the other hand, this opens up a whole realm of potential namespace
clashes, when two libraries both try to add the same method to the same
class... 

well, food for thought, anyway.

-Avdi Grimm