From: Robert Klemme Date: 2011-01-31T19:46:15+09:00 Subject: Re: why is overloading invalid in ruby. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Shadowfirebird wrote: > So far I don't believe I've heard anyone make the obvious case against method overloading -- that unless done very carefully indeed, it makes the code much, much more difficult to read.  One method does one job is the sane way to go, thanks. I had tried to make the point here: http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/377075 > Or, indeed, the practical case - at the very heart of Ruby is the idea of duck typing.  Duck typing rules out method overloading, because parameters would have to have set types before you could have a signature.  Presumably no-one is suggesting that we should have fixed typing in Ruby? Erm, actually there _are_ people who believe typing should change in Ruby to support static typing features. There does not seem to be much support for this in the community though. Obviously ducks feel more at home in our community pond than metal skeletons. :-) Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/