From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2006-11-05T17:23:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Redefining a class

------=_Part_44956_3338200.1162714997265
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/4/06, David Vallner <david@vallner.net> wrote:
>
> Robert Dober wrote:
> > Actually I am very disappointed that you cannot read my mind Ara ;) it
> > would
> > be quite antipols to use
> > not constant classnames (wouldn't be there some warnings too BTW?)
> >
>
> If you redefine the class at times, it's hardly constant. Personally, I
> think it's cleaner to use non-constant names for... well... nonconstant
> objects, including classes you intend to redefine.


Actually clear  like  water, I was wrting stupid things, it is only
anticonventional .
I have problems defending I feature I dislike and yet feel it should be here
because...

(On the possibility
> of redefining classes -outside- your code I shan't speak, because I'd
> have to get vulgar. Prolific namespace clobbering already gets on my
> nerves, and I wish there was a way to localise such changes requiring a
> module causes. /me gets off soapbox.) And I sure as hell would find it
> surprising if suddenly a hash keyed by what I thought were constant
> objects started breaking.


... there is some truth(1) in what you are saying.
No doubt one of the reasions why remove_const is private.

David Vallner
>
>
>
> Robert

(1) although strictly speaking there is no such thing I mean "POV I share to
some degrees"
-- 
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.

- George Bernard Shaw

------=_Part_44956_3338200.1162714997265--