From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2002-09-10T12:21:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoph" <chr_news@gmx.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby


> I hope that once Ruby gets proper namespace support we will
> also see the end of the Java'ish module function Math.cos
> and it friends.

It should be possible to write a little module to mix
in methods into Numeric (I suppose) which would do the
same thing.

If I were a little smarter or less lazy, I'll bet I could
do this in fewer than ten lines of Ruby (by writing a little
routine to take a symbol and create the new Numeric#foo
based on the old Math.foo and then passing in the list of
methods :sin, :cos, etc.).

> > A problem in making all functions methods of the class of their most
> > important argument is IMHO the largest flaw in Ruby: that all method
> > names of the given class are put in a single namespace! And class
> > names generally too.
> >
> > I know that it would otherwise not fit the way method calls are
> > designed. This is a reason why I'm not a fan of the model.
>
> I agree with you whole heartedly , expect that it really isn't a failing
of
> Ruby itself but the single method receiver model Matz and probably
> the vast majority of  ``Rubyists''  (imo unfortunately) seem to prefer.

This is very interesting to me, as the only OO I know
is single-receiver. Can you explain the paradigm? A
URL would suffice.

Hal