From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-11-23T00:10:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Method wrapper question (was "stereotyping (was ...))

On Sunday, November 23, 2003, 1:56:57 AM, ts wrote:

>>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:

G>> What difference does it make?  Import a method or define it yourself -
G>> what's the big deal?

>  OK, but I want to do the same with normal methods

>> [...]

>  You have the same problem actually with methods, perhaps you just don't
>  see it


You're right, I don't see it.  A wrapper around a method is not a
method.

I suppose it is possible that you could implement Ruby so that this
behaviour ensues:

  class Example
    def a; print "X"; end
    def a; print "Y"; end
  end

  Example.new.a              # -> "XY"

You'd have some potential issues with argument lists and return types,
but if people wanted this behaviour, it would be technically possible
to give it to them.  People wouldn't want it, though.

It is equally technically possible to allow multiple method wrappers.
The cultural resistence is, I predict, less, as we wrap methods all
the time with ugly aliasing tricks, and there's no preventing
multi-wrapping there.

So what's the conclusion going to be?

And what am I missing?

Gavin