From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2004-01-21T04:04:29+09:00
Subject: Re: Fighting Ruby's bad fame

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:05:02 +0900, GGarramuno wrote:
>> can you elaborate? Ruby has namespaces defined by modules.
> Yes, but not good enough.

An opinion.

> Compared to Perl or Python, include is missing the ability of
> Perl's use or Python's import command to just bring only certain
> parts of the module into the current namespace. In perl, you can
> do:
>   use Module (:func1 :func2);
> and in python:
>   from Module import :func1, :func2

I personally see no reason for this. I've *never* used this
so-called "feature" in Perl, and I don't see the point of it,
either.

> And only those two functions/classes/variables get imported into
> the current namespace. Ruby's include seems to be an all or
> nothing proposition, unfortunately.

Why unfortunately? When you're using many other languages, it's also
an all-or-nothing proposition. If I'm using Delphi (Object Pascal),
I can't select which methods I'm importing from a module. Same with
C, C++, Java, and C# (as far as I know).

-austin
--
austin ziegler  * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2004.01.20
                    * 13.58.37