From: Christian Szegedy <szegedy@...>
Date: 2002-09-06T22:30:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics

Reimer Behrends wrote:

> Christian Szegedy (szegedy@nospam.or.uni-bonn.de) wrote:
>> I disagree: It is a practical problem. If I can't guarantee name collision,
>> (and therefore working code), then it is a problem that disturbs me all the
>> time. It is far from a philosophical or theoretical issue.
> 
> 
> It is a religious issue because it hinges on methodological assumptions
> that cannot be validated objectively, but have to be taken on faith. By
> your methodological assumptions, name collisions are the central
> problem; by mine, lack of reuse and extensibility is. And there is no
> way to decide the matter _objectively_. It's largely an article of
> faith, not of right or wrong.
> 

You pretend that there are two concurrent issues, and one has to
balance between them. I think that there are only one issue
and there is nothing to balance.

You misunderstand me: for me reusability and
extensibility are the main issues. But I need a solution for
name collision to have them.

The solutions proposed here (being similar to that adapted by C++)
does not restrict your capability to grant access to implementation
details if ***necessary***, but still solve the name collision
problem. You could do everthing you've done till now, but you
won't have to think long before coining a new data member
name. What's so bad about it?


Regards, Christian