From: Christian Szegedy <szegedy@...>
Date: 2002-09-06T18:50:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Ruby aesthetics"
>     on 02/09/06, Christian Szegedy <szegedy@nospam.or.uni-bonn.de> writes:
> 
> |This seems to be mainly a name problem.
> |
> |The names of the private functions could start with a
> |special character followed by the (binarily) encoded id of the class
> |(or mixed in module) they live in.
> |
> |Of course to accomplish this, each method must know to which
> |class it belongs, but I think it's not so complicated.
> |
> |Do I miss some particular complication? I don't know the internals
> |of Ruby so well.
> 
> Ruby classes/modules can be left unnamed.
> 
> 							matz.
> 

I would encode the id (VALUE) of the class itself in the 1...4 bytes of
the name of the data-member.

Regards, Christian