From: Ned Konz Date: 2001-08-16T03:40:21+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:19819] Re: Why not?: Assigning to self On Tuesday 14 August 2001 08:14 pm, matz wrote: > Hi, > > In message "[ruby-talk:19713] Re: Why not?: Assigning to self" > > on 01/08/15, Ned Konz writes: > |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. > > Unfortunately, many internal assume the type (or class) of internal > object remain unchanged, so that "become" can crash the interpreter > and it's hard to make it "become" safe. I'm not sure it's worthy. > I feel rather negative. That's interesting. Doesn't this change the class of a? a = "abcd" def a.something; end If so, it would seem that the system already deals with objects that can change classes (because singleton classes can be constructed on the fly). -- Ned Konz currently: Stanwood, WA email: ned@bike-nomad.com homepage: http://bike-nomad.com