[ruby-talk:8804] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array

Christoph Rippel wrote:

>your question is ``only'' a matter of taste. Personally I already 
>dislike the inclusion of max,min and sort in the Array class  instead 
>of creating a proper ``array > sortable array > numeric array'' class 
>hierarchy. 
>
>My secret wish for 1.7 would be the creation of a parallel (for 
>legacy reasons) more fine grained collection class hierarchy instead 
>of the current everything is either an ``Array or Hash'' strategy,
>in which Arrays can take on the roles of Sets, MultiSets, Numerical  
>Arrays, Stacks, etc. . Introducing specialized collection classes
>could make Ruby more efficient, clearly expresses the indent of usage
>and could provide a definite answer on whether a general #sum method 
>should be included or what the proper definition of the intersection 
>of arrays should be ... .

I think I agree, and not for performance reasons. 
Each class should do just one thing, and do it 
well. That way, you only have to sift through and 
learn the parts that you care about, rather than 
an entire class with 100 methods.

Kevin