From: Ned Konz <ned@...>
Date: 2001-08-15T02:15:45+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:19713] Re: Why not?: Assigning to self

On Tuesday 14 August 2001 09:45 am, you wrote:
> >>>>> "N" == Ned Konz <ned@bike-nomad.com> writes:
>
> N> In other cases (speaking in class terms), become() would be used two
> swap two N> objects that share a common superclass
>
> pigeon% ruby -e 'p Class < Object; p Array < Object'
> true
> true
> pigeon%

I should have said "supertype". Clearly, if you swap a Class for an Array, 
you're going to have problems. But Ruby is a dynamic language with untyped 
variables anyway; it's easy to pass the wrong type as an argument to a 
method. And few people who are comfortable with dynamic languages seem to 
have problems with this, since they know better than to pass the wrong type.

I don't see that introducing become() (if it could be done without affecting 
other parts of the language) would hurt, and it would help in those 
(admittedly uncommon) cases where it's warranted.

-- 
Ned Konz
currently: Stanwood, WA
email:     ned@bike-nomad.com
homepage:  http://bike-nomad.com