From: "T. Onoma" Date: 2003-12-18T01:12:39+09:00 Subject: Re: UnboundMethods Useless? On Wednesday 17 December 2003 04:30 pm, ts wrote: > >>>>> "P" == Peter writes: > > P> Before we start calling each other names, I need a clarification. I can > do P> this in Ruby: > > try first to resolve this > > P> And moving core methods (I assume you mean those implemented in the C > P> core) is indeed likely to give big problems. I haven't considered that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > P> yet. Even if Ruby would report an error if we tried to move a core > method, ^^^ > P> it would break our idea. First of all what represents a core function? Every method that I know of can be redefined. Even if it means the whole shebang comes to a scretching halt. It's the old adage of shotting one's self in the foot. No one's asking for the world here. We simply wish to teach Ruby new tricks IN RUBY. If we find a place in which this CAN'T be done then there's a good chance that it's a potential stepping stone for improving Ruby in the future. Granted, if there are already better ways to do something, then learning the proper way is first and foremost. But when such means run dry, as has occured here, it is not a question of learning Ruby first. Obviosuly if that was the problem someone else would have already suggested a REAL SOLUTION rather then simply saying: "what the heck you want to do that craziness for!" We have come to you with an honest problem. It is for us to decide what we wish to do with it. If you can show us another way, we would be greatly appriciative. But if you can't, it is assumptive and discourteous to suggest that we have no need or knowledge of what we are really doing. Thus pointing out someone's own admittance that they have not considered something should not be an invite for childish demonstratives of "told you so". This is not a contest of ego, but an honest exploration of possibility, asking rather for constructive responses. -- T.