From: dblack@...
Date: 2002-09-27T07:09:06+09:00
Subject: Re: adding overload to ruby

Hi --

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:

> Hi, great, I have someone with the same interest.  My idea is simple:
>
> 1) First, we all love Ruby, right?  So there must always be untyped
> variable like in the current Ruby, so we can simply write
>
>     a = 10
>
> 2) Now, all those class names (at least the built-in classes) will also be
> keywords in declaring variables:
>
>     Fixnum a

What this comes down to is, primarily, the question of whether one
thinks a typeless language should exist and, secondarily, the question
of whether one thinks that Ruby should be that (or one of those)
language(s).  You can't just leave "a = 10" lying around and assume
that, even with type declarations, Ruby is the same language because
the nostalgic can program without declaring types.

I recommend that everyone involved or interested in this thread
(re-)read Dave Thomas's post on "Order, chaos, and change requests"
(http://www.ruby-talk.org/12606).


David

-- 
David Alan Black                      | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net     | November 1-3
work: blackdav@shu.edu                | Seattle, WA, USA
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com