T. Onoma
11/28/2003 6:14:00 AM
On Friday 28 November 2003 05:09 am, Chad Fowler wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, T. Onoma wrote:
>
> I don't see how these are the same idea. And, yes, I read the "dang" RCR.
HUH?
wrap
...
end
is nothing like?
pre
...
end
Doh! What was I thinking!? Well, I don't care anyway. Obviously David is just
ignoring my comment. Nor any mention of my RCR. His loss.
> In particular, your implicit method definition stacking looks like it
> would very quickly lead to some unmanagable knots of code. When I look at
> it, my mind thinks overwrite. The comparison to the usage of "super" in
> inheritance seems like a serious stretch.
Stretch? That's funny because singletons are essentially an implementation of
wraps, the concpet of which being the foundation of my proposal, and I don't
here any body claiminging their unmanagable.
> I fully understand what you are saying in the RCR, but I don't think it
> will make intuitive sense to Ruby users. I think pre, post, and wrap need
> to be explicit (as matz has laid them out in his proposal). Additionally,
> if we're going to stack method definitions, that should be explicit too.
> Inheritance, maybe only historically, is in my opinion a good place to
> draw the line between implicit feature addition and replacement.
Suit yourself, draw a line. But I think your just further complicating the
language, which at this point could actually use some simplification. Sadly,
it seems like Ruby's headed the way of Perl :(
-t0