On Friday 28 May 2004 15:31, David A. Black wrote:
>
> Yes, but *whether* you implement globals does change the question of
> whether you should be judged, as a language, on the cleanness of your
> implementation of globals :-)  You're assuming that Ruby is somehow
> accountable for implementing globals, and then (not surprisingly)
> finding that it does so inadequately.  But there's no reason to hold
> Ruby to that contract in the first place.

I went with what was obvious to me, and what I found "the least surprising."  
When I look at a blank text editor, and type:

def method
end

...I expect that to be a global.  It looks global.

It would be better if either you simply weren't allowed to do that, and you 
were FORCED to specify a module or class before definining any methods, such 
as Java does, or the methods are simply placed into Kernel by default, making 
them global.  To me, it's completely unexpected that such a small bit of code 
such as the above would be so hard to call from within other module methods.

	Sean O'Dell