From: Jason Roelofs <jameskilton@...>
Date: 2007-09-26T02:02:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Why dynamic languages for ActiveRecord..?

------=_Part_980_3537928.1190739722442
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/25/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/07, Phlip <phlip2005@gmail.com> wrote:
> > David A. Black wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say that the type of a Ruby object can change, but its class
> > > cannot. That's based on an understanding of the object's type as a
> > > kind of runtime snapshot of what the object can do and what messages
> > > it understands.
> >
> > The inspiration there is Smalltalk, which is similarly strongly typed.
> I would not agree with this statement. Smalltalk strongly typed???
> Furthermore there is Object>>becomes: (or was it a different class?)
> which lets an object change its class too, so that makes a big
> difference to Ruby.
> BTW I had love to have Object#becomes in Ruby :)))
>
> Cheers
> Robert
> --
> I'm an atheist and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know
> except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for
> other people.
> -- Katharine Hepburn
>
>
require 'evil'

http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?evil.rb+dl+and+unfreeze

------=_Part_980_3537928.1190739722442--