From: Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
Date: 2007-03-21T10:36:05+09:00
Subject: Re: does Ruby not support multiple "initialize" methods for a class???

Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:09:36AM +0900, Chad Perrin wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:32:37AM +0900, johan556@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 3/20/07, Greg Hauptmann <greg.hauptmann.ruby@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Q1 - Does Ruby not support multiple "initialize" methods for a class?
>>>>
>>>> Q2 - If no is there a reason for this out of curiosity?
>>>>
>>>> Q3 - What approach is recommended if this constraint does exist?
>>>>
>>> I have been using the following pattern to implement multiple
>>> constructors for a class. It is only a variation of the already
>>> proposed solutions, but by using "instance_eval" I could avoid having
>>> to create separate new/initialize-like methods for each constructor.
>> I've heard it said -- and I tend to agree -- that regular use of
>> "patterns" is a sign that the language lacks something.  I wonder if
>> that is the case with Ruby, as applies to multiple constructor behavior
>> implementation.
>>
>> I say "wonder" because I really am not certain in this case.
> 
> Well, it's a choice. You can either have overloading or dynamic typing, but
> not both.

Not true. Perl 6 will have optional static typing [1]. Sydney faked it 
with a Behavior you could import (that used the parser to handle it, not 
a compile time step, IIRC).

It's possible. The question is whether or not it's desirable. I vote 
yes, others say no, and still others are in favor of some sort of type 
inferencing. It's been brought up before - you can search the archives. :)

Regards,

Dan

[1] http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2007/03/01/perl-6-parameter-passing.html