Re: Name resolution in Ruby

Hmmph, but you do get the last laugh.  You have destroyed about two
weeks of tinkering on my part.  I was actually trying to wrestle
together an Object System along the lines of Self, using a prebuilt GC. 
My intention had been to get that working, I've been using *XML* as
source until I could decide on a syntax (which was going to be as Ruby
as applicable and I could make it).  Vortex appears to actually *be* a
very large superset of my project, "a language-independent optimizing
compiler infrastructure for object-oriented and other high-level
languages".  Now if you take away the, "optimizing", the
"language-independent", and the "other high-level languages", you have
my pathetic foray into the interpreter business down to a tee.  If they
could write a Cecil frontend for Vortex (which is itself written in
Cecil), it will certainly be possible for me (intelligence and time
permitting) to write something along the lines of what I had
envisioned-- what is to Self what Ruby is to Smalltalk.  With Vortex it
looks like I might actually be able to throw multi-methods into the
mix.  My "timetable", such as it was, has been thrown a curve-ball by
Vortex, and there's going to be a big-learning curve here (Cecil &
Vortex), but sometime in the forseeable future I hope to have a simple
interpreter With console and basic file I/O, strings, arrays and hashes,
and numbers (whose default behavior will be along the lines of ANSI CL--
5/2 is 5/2, not 2, since I prefer nice integer arithmetic by default and
realistically this project is only going to be used for my
self-gratification).  Whenever I do get around to adding Regexes I'll
probably use something prepackaged like Henry Spencer's implementation,
though depending on how adventerous I'm feeling I might go by the Ruby
source to preserve as much commonality as possible.

So, again thanks for the pointer are probably in order.

Anyone want to help?  No I imagine not, "Alex does not play well with
others".  Would be nice to be on the other end of the YPIG (You Push
I'll Grunt) system though, makes me see pair programming in a whole new
light :).

And anyways, I've scared you all off with this ramble.

Alexander Schofield wrote:
> 
> Allow me to quote from the "Cecil" link on the page you provided:
> "Cecil has a classless object model. Objects have methods attached
> directly to them, without needing a separate
>     class to hold their format & behavior. One-of-a-kind objects with
> their own behavior (e.g. true, false, nil, and other enumerated
> constants) are easy to define."
> also it is a, "simple prototype-based Object Model", which is at least
> the same terminology that Self uses.
> 
> "subclasses" are only mentioned once, with the quotes.
> 
> But thank you for the link, I wasn't aware of Cecil's existence and
> Vortex in particular looks fascinating.  You have given me my, "new
> language fix" for the week. :)
> 
> "Chr. Rippel" wrote:
> >
> > "Alexander Schofield" <[e-mail]> wrote in
> > ...
> > > Here here.  After reading about Self
> > > http://research.sun.com/self/language.html a while back I am in full
> > > agreement.  No classes at all.  The interesting thing about Self is that
> > > it could easily simulate any class-based OO lang (multiple or single
> > > inheritence, or some other type of mixin facility) without much of a
> > ...
> >
> > Hm, one of the self team member Craig Chambers later became team leader
> > of the Cecil project http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/projects/cecil/
> > - a very advanced OO-language and which is extremely  class  oriented -
> > kind of interesting isn't it ...
> >
> > /Christoph
> 
> --
> Alexander Schofield

-- 
Alexander Schofield