From: Christoph <chr_news@...>
Date: 2002-04-01T07:28:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Why isn't Math object-oriented?

RE: Why isn't Math object-oriented?
"Dale Martenson" <dmartenson@multitech.com> wrote in
....
>> However, this failed because all of Math's methods are class methods
>> This doesn't seem to make any sense, since Math is a Module. Anyone
>> know the reasoning behind this one? Matz?
> I agree this is a great philosophical question. If you want to treat math in a more
object oriented way, you could do the following. I am not sure how you would want to
handle > methods that require more than one parameter.

Personally I don't believe that the latter is possible within Ruby's current Object model.
Maybe the best testimony for this unfortunate fact is the extensive use of the ingenious
coerce framework in the Numeric class hierarchy which stikes me as being antithetical
to my own understanding of object oriented techniques ( -i.e. the main question probably
is  ``what the meaning of object oriented is'')

/Christoph