On Jan 9, 2011, at 16:05 , Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Class to class method transplanting could cause serious problem, but
> it might be able to relax module to module transplanting.

Matz,=20

You've argued that being able to define !=3D contradictory with =3D=3D =
(a serious problem in my mind) is ok because we trust rubyists to do the =
right thing. How is this any different? If the method transplanted is =
pure ruby, why not allow it?
=20=