From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-11-20T06:51:49+09:00
Subject: Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) )

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 01:45 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:02:05 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 November 2003 12:29 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >> Matz: note that Python went through this discussion five years
> >> ago and it still doesn't have it. I'm not sure Ruby *really*
> >> needs it, either. The only thing that I think Ruby could use is a
> >> standardized way of publishing method signature information for
> >> the cases I've outlined.
> >
> > A good system of method signatures serves the same purpose in my
> > mind, if they're convenient enough to call that we can expect
> > people to actually use them where they're needed, and not avoid
> > them because they're a pain to use.
> >
> > Either way, the called method can ask "does this object do what I
> > want?" which is all I am after.
>
> What you're talking about and what I'm talking about are two
> different things. I'm talking about informative metadata, not
> enforcement or error diagnostics. I'm also specifically talking
> about it in the cases outlined -- RPC and GUI object inspectors.

Then why did you respond to my post?

> > As someone who has developed libraries in Lisp, C, C++, Java,
> > Ruby, Perl, Visual Basic, Delphi, Pascal, bash shell, as well as
> > developing O'Basic, a complete script language itself, I can tell
> > you that I have always tried to make life easier for the
> > developers who have had to use my libraries.
>
> I would suggest that you haven't used my libraries, then. Because if
> you had, you would know that your suggestion has nothing to do with
> reality.

How can you tell?

	Sean O'Dell