Hal E. Fulton
11/12/2004 1:51:00 AM
trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> On Thursday 11 November 2004 08:30 pm, Logan Capaldo wrote:
> | I think his problem is he's writing things like:
> | class SomeNewClass
> | def initialise
> | ....
> | end
> | end
> |
> | which is why he wants Object#initialize to call initialise
>
> (IMHO) I've always wished it were just #init.
I can live with initialize.
But I'm now wondering if it might be acceptable to allow *either*
of these.
Might be problematic, though. It's not like an alias, but more
like the reverse of one.
What if someone defined #initialize AND #initialise? We'd want to
detect that (and give an error, I guess). And what if one existed,
and the other was later defined dynamically? Etc., etc.?
All in all, I guess things are best the way they are. This may be
a thought process that Matz went through in 1993, and much faster
than I just did.
Hal