trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> On Thursday 11 November 2004 08:30 pm, Logan Capaldo wrote:
> | I think his problem is he's writing things like:
> | class SomeNewClass
> |          def initialise
> |                ....
> |          end
> | end
> |
> | which is why he wants Object#initialize to call initialise
> 
> (IMHO) I've always wished it were just #init.

I can live with initialize.

But I'm now wondering if it might be acceptable to allow *either*
of these.

Might be problematic, though. It's not like an alias, but more
like the reverse of one.

What if someone defined #initialize AND #initialise? We'd want to
detect that (and give an error, I guess). And what if one existed,
and the other was later defined dynamically? Etc., etc.?

All in all, I guess things are best the way they are. This may be
a thought process that Matz went through in 1993, and much faster
than I just did.


Hal