seebs
5/10/2007 7:37:00 PM
In message <1729121287c950a23813c5596b4b3f57@ruby-forum.com>, Lucas Holland writes:
>I've got someone here saying that Ruby (and other languages) can't be
>100% object-oriented because if and unless and so on (keywords) are no
>objects.
>
>How can I defend the claim that Ruby is 100% OOP?
Argue with smarter people.
-s