From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2006-06-04T02:32:47+09:00 Subject: Re: Another Look at SELECTOR NAMESPACES On 6/3/06, transfire@gmail.com wrote: > Well, I would tend to agree with you if were almost any other language. > But given's Ruby dynamics, namely the ability to extend previsously > defined classes and modules, really put Ruby in a differnt ballgame. > Selector namespaces provide a way to manage that. I understand the > downside of having definitions change based on context, but that's the > trade-off for the flexibility. I really believe Ruby should move foward > with this. But if it's decided that this flexibility is not "good", > then I think Ruby should just close shop on her classes and module > --once defined always defined. I do a lot of meta-coding and I find in > this area Ruby can still be rather frustrating to use b/c it really > hasn't fully embraced itself as a meta-lanaguage. Fortunately, the choice isn't yours. I think that what you're wanting is going *way* too far into unnecessary and hard-to-understand arcana, and the opposite of that is not closed classes. Selector namespaces are about *explicit* method selection, not implicit method selection, IMO. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca