From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk Date: 2002-09-11T03:15:43+09:00 Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:17:42 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto pisze: > I'm not sure if you're talking multi-method like one in CLOS, > or other namespace issue. Both, they are related. In the Ruby model methods are anonymous names with no associated data and the receiver alone is sufficient to understand a method, so method names are distinguished by apperance rather than identity. Although it would be possible to extend method names to include explicitly generated fresh symbols (that you must import from somewhere in order to send), it would introduce awkwardness not present before, just to be safe wrt. namespaces, so it wouldn't be accepted. In my CLOS-like model methods are fully-fledged objects existing outside their receivers, so it's natural that you explicitly create them somewhere. A method belongs to the module which introduced it. You explicitly import modules anyway in order to call functions defined in them. Unqualified name lookup is static. The problem seems to be real: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:33:28 +0900 From: "Shashank Date" Subject: Re: Rockit problem [...] This is due to two conflicting class definitions: class BoundedLruCache # in rockit/bounded_lru_cache.rb required by rockit class BoundedLruCache < Hash # in site_ruby/resultcache.rb required by Memoize So how do I overcome this problem ? -- __("< Marcin Kowalczyk \__/ qrczak@knm.org.pl ^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/