[ruby-talk:00676] Re: Way to intercept method calls?

On 18 Aug, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "[ruby-talk:00672] Re: Way to intercept method calls?"
>     on 99/08/17, [e-mail] <[e-mail]> writes:
> 

[...]
 
> Yes.  I assume the cost of one additional condtional check can be
> ignored.  But two things:
> 
>   * I'm not sure whether it's worthy enough.  I'm afraid not.

I really don't know, whether it is worth or not! My idea was only, that
with this feature, I could write a class, that works with a totally
different OOP scheme (perhaps multiple inheritance, perhaps classless
objects, etc.). If that class would be coded in C, the performance
would not suffer much! The best would be, that it even could work
together with the current OOP scheme used by Ruby!

I have thought, that perhaps it could be a good idea. We could say:
"Oh! You don't like the current scheme? Doesn't matter... write your
own one!" I think, that would make Ruby the first OOL that could be
enhanced that way... :-)))

Ruby is cool! That feature would also be cool! So marry them if
possible ;-)))

>   * We don't have spare flagspace anymore in current implementation.

That is an issue, I think! But is it a killing one? Or could we perhaps
do something here (enhance the flag area from one to two bytes...?)

[...]
 
> Well, at least it doesn't hurt the performance of unrelated objects.

That was important for me! If I would introduce a new OOP scheme, I
would not like to make the current one slower :-)

> 
>                                                         matz.

\cle