From: bbense+comp.lang.ruby.Sep.26.02@...
Date: 2002-09-27T04:56:30+09:00
Subject: Re: adding overload to ruby

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <24105664687.20020926151354@integ.ru>,
Bulat Ziganshin <bulatz@integ.ru> wrote:
>Hello ts,
>
>Thursday, September 26, 2002, 2:59:20 PM, you wrote:
>
>t> pigeon% ruby -e 'def a(Array a, Object o) end; def a(Object o, String s) end'
>t> -e:1: Possible ambiguous call [Array, Object] -- [Object, String] (NameError)
>t> pigeon%
>
>why you don't want to add overload to mainstream ruby?
>

- - This is not Ruby. If you really want typed arguements, then you
should not be using ruby. It isn't for everybody. This overload
proposal is nothing more than the camel's nose of strict typing
peeking into the tent. 

- - One of the fundemental things that makes ruby Ruby is that 
it is not a typed language. This gives the programmer a great
deal of flexiblity and power, but every freedom comes with a price. 
The price of this flexiblity is giving up the security blanket
of type checking. 

- - Booker C. Bense 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBPZNhL2TWTAjn5N/lAQE3FwP+MA4sQn7sbqh34EY3hOaxAYH9EOcXgXWS
6pZJAxEY8/kjSEJVMwcY7Z9xmx5ilTdDy0KQt1256HjcehAxcEcPPyxQZnElMiTB
/Fvb19K89mTmibs0nlQIWmu1RaPyIOg7mGQOEic2RIJf7C7LOqKt8wNYHhVcM/rk
oX6X1bQ8rog=
=JWno
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----