On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Dave Thomas wrote:
> Mathieu Bouchard <matju / cam.org> writes:
> > Second "release" of ArrayMixin 0.2, a future equivalent to Perl's TIEARRAY
> > system.
> I think this is marvelous stuff (and I'm looking forward to the File
> version so we can implement StringFile).

Another marvelous thing is Rubicon. Maybe you can adapt it to run on
alternate Array-like classes, like ArrayUsingArray (provided at the
end of ArrayMixin 0.2). All you should need to do to get started is
parametrize all your array constructors to include a variable class name.

> Just a thought. Is there a naming convention we should be using to
> differentiate the base methods from the derived methods? I'm note sure 
> I see a benefit, but there's something nagging at the back of my mind.

I am not sure why I would be doing that, or why I would not be doing that. 
Maybe we can think about it some more. Would you please try to find out
why you think this could be useful? 

> One day I'd love to go through the interpreter and #ifdef stuff out
> so we have a truly small base interpreter and then have the rest
> written in Ruby. RiR might be slow, but it would be a wonderful
> reference implementation.

Such a small base interpreter could be called Ruby Light. (However Ruby is
not a brand of cigarettes that I know)

For Ruby in Ruby... "RiR" sounds like French "rire" which means "laugh". 
Other potential names for it may be "RubyRuby" or "MetaRuby", or even
"Doobie" for "Double Ruby" and because of its mind-altering properties
:-) 

matju