From: Chris Roos <chrisjroos@...>
Date: 2006-09-16T23:06:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby keywords vs methods

On 9/16/06, Pit Capitain <pit@capitain.de> wrote:
> Chris Roos schrieb:
> > Ok, so this is being pedantic, but that doesn't appear to work if you
> > have two separate files, each defining Foo#foo, both being required by
> > another script.
>
> Works for me with Ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [i386-mswin32] on Windows 2000.
>
You are, of course, absolutely right.  I was obviously doing something
stoopid when I tested it earlier.

> > Although I am interested in solutions to this 'problem', I'd still
> > love feedback on the decision of adding keywords to the language.
>
> I cannot answer that. I too think that having less keywords increases
> the flexibility of a language, but there could be other drawbacks, for
> example concerning performance or syntax changes, I don't know. Maybe
> you can get an answer from Matz about this.
>
> Another way to solve your original problem would be to add more hooks to
> the Ruby interpreter.
>
Hmm, although you've now shown me that this use case is essentially
null and void.  I'll have to come up with some other complicated
answers to things that I don't realise are baked right into the
interpreter :-)

> > Maybe I should break that to another thread with a better subject (any
> > suggestions)?
>
> For me the subject is OK, I just wanted to answer the one detail
> question about warnings upon method redefinitions.
>
Cool, I appreciate your input.

Chris