David A. Black wrote:
> 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?).
Does that really matter in lieu of the fact that multiple people are 
using this 'feature'?  I think most software designers are surprised how 
people end up using their software.  It certainly could be done 
differently, but class/modules only take colon2/3 which means we would 
need to do this over multiple lines or need to expand definition of what 
can go after class/module.

-Tom