On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 06:49:55AM +0900, Ola Bini wrote:
> _why wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 10:58:52PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> >>On 2/1/07, Ola Bini <ola.bini / ki.se> wrote:
> >>>And further, it's a question of flexibility. Why shouldn't you be able
> >>>to do it?
> >>Classes represent objects that contain state. Classes have
> >>initialization; modules don't contain state (as such).
> >
> >Well, actually, the difference between classes and modules is very
> >small, as they both are stored in RClass.
[...]
> 
> Yeah, I know that. And that's also the reason I'm asking. The only 
> restriction against doing this is an artificial check. It seems Ruby 
> isn't about adding restrictions without reason. So, I guess I'm asking 
> for a very good reason... =) Matz?

This has been discussed before; what you are suggesting was championed by
matju ~3.5 years ago, before he abandoned Ruby (I was surprised at myself for
my vivid recollection of that discussion, I hadn't realized it'd been so much
time since).  See the thread starting with [[ruby-core:1378]].

-- 
Mauricio Fernandez  -   http://eigenclass.org   -  singular Ruby