"trans. (T. Onoma)" <transami / runbox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:200409290747.51120.transami / runbox.com...

> Sure. I'd rather not clutter up Kernel either. I think its already got
too
> many methods (why all those string related methods, for instance?)

Because in Ruby there are no functions (as opposed to C++ for example) and
thus Kernel is used as the place to define global "functions".

> But in
> this case it doesn't really bother me, especially if a missing_method
takes
> care of it.

Still I don't see the gain in this other than make Ruby resemble other
languages more.  In that case you might also want to add

module Kernel
private
  def new(cl,*args, &b) cl.new(*args, &b) end
end

>> h = new Hash
=> {}

*shudder*

> It might be interesting if () were a "method dispatcher" method itself,
then
> it could be defined/redefined like [] is. But don't quote me on that,
for the
> moment it's just a passing thought ;)

You did definitely too much C++. :-)

Cheers

    robert