Hi --

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> David A. Black wrote:
>> OK... but could you do something else? :-) I don't mean that
>> facetiously; I'm just not sure that having two ways to get at the Java
>> class is worth having all the extra ::'s throughout so much Ruby code.
>> But I don't know enough about the problem to know how it might have
>> played out if . and :: had been fully differentiated in Ruby.
>
> You can't do this with dots:
>
> class java::lang::System
> end

But that's an effect, rather than the cause, of the decisions taken
about :: and .. (Hard to end a sentence with .! :-) Maybe we're in too
deep for it to change, though. It might make more sense if I knew what
Matz had in mind with it originally (i.e., why have two
message-sending operators?).


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 9-12            Berlin
   ADVANCING WITH RAILS   June 16-19           Berlin
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 24-27           London (Skills Matter)
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!