From: Bulat Ziganshin <bulatz@...>
Date: 2002-09-27T17:20:24+09:00
Subject: Re: adding overload to ruby

Hello Yukihiro,

Friday, September 27, 2002, 11:35:30 AM, you wrote:

YM> Hi,

YM> In message "Re: adding overload to ruby"
YM>     on 02/09/27, "Bulat Ziganshin" <bulatz@integ.ru> writes:

YM> |what is the protocol, in your mind? i think that this is a bundle of
YM> |method names and their behavior. that is the difference with (possible
YM> |empty) mix-in module?

YM> If you have method overloading, you can use modules as if they are
YM> prototype, just like when you have multiple inheritance you can use
YM> classes as mix-ins.  But the point is protocol is based solely on
YM> method signatures only.

difference between our viewpoints is what i think that method body
itself contains all the method calls and we need more absract layer -
defining which sort of data can be accepted by this body

including mixin/interface/protocol in class body may be considered as
declaration that class will support some behavior

-- 
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:bulatz@integ.ru