From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2003-04-24T12:10:42+09:00
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [ANN] Ruby.shop

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Weirich" <jweirich@one.net>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:25 PM
Subject: Subject: Re: [ANN] Ruby.shop


> On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 18:16, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> > Maybe I should just reverse the arrowheads? On the other
> > hand, the only other red arrow is IO --> File. Maybe I
> > could reverse that one instead. :)
> 
> UML uses the convention that any arrow will point in the direction of a
> dependency.  So A->B implies that A depends on B (in some way).  As
> Chris points out, there are many different kinds of dependencies
> (represented in UML as different kinds of arrows, e.g. open arrowhead,
> dashed lines).
> 
> Following this convention, we would have  ...
>    File -> IO
>    Array -> Enumerable
>    etc
> 
> Of course, your diagram isn't UML, but the convention is a good one to
> follow.

OK, I see. So my blue arrows already follow that convention,
but the File-IO arrow does not.

What's your take on the circularity at the top? Chris says
that Object doesn't take anything from Class. I thought it
did. I'll have to think about that tomorrow.

Maybe I could use magenta arrows with heads at both ends. 

Hal