From: Dick Davies <rasputnik@...>
Date: 2004-04-15T05:45:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Comments on Ruby

* gabriele renzi <surrender_it@rc1.vip.ukl.yahoo.com> [0450 19:50]:
> il Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:38:31 GMT, "Its Me" <itsme213@hotmail.com> ha
> scritto::
 
> >> >1.  def ought to return a Method object.  Just because.  Having def
> >> >return an object adds a little bit of consistency, IMO.

> >> I'd prefer a symbol, FWIW

> >But a symbol itself has no connection back to the class or method. Should it
> >instead be some object that combined [UnboundMethod + Symbol], or something
> >like that?

> this has been suggested already IIRC. 
> My point is that
> - I never used an UnboundMethod
> - I could write 'private def f(); end

I remember from my nuby days (ok, ok, my *total* nuby days) a thread on this -
the separate 'private :meth" line was the only thing that grated on me when I first
started. Did that ever go anywhere?

> After that Obviously I'll ask for public/private/protected to return
> anopther symbol, and concatenate final() abstract() synchronized() and
> stuff like that :)

Oh, *they* can stay back in PoorMansSmalltalk land please. They're part of 
the reason I left :)

-- 
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
		-- Marvin Minsky
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns