On 7/27/05, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> In message "Re: What's so special about operators, built-in classes and modules?"
> on Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:57:32 +0900, Devin Mullins <twifkak / comcast.net> writes:
>| What would be bad about allowing the include method to take
>| Classes in addition to Modules? (And to keep everything else the
>| same, including the distinction between subclassing (via "<") and
>| mixin-ing (via "include").)
> If we allow "include" to take classes, it's a plain multiple
> inheritance. We should stand all the complexity of multiple
> inheritance by that. I might have misunderstood you since I'm not
> sure what you meant by "keeping everything else the same".

I agree. The problem I have with this sort of proposal is that since
classes keep state, if we allow the inclusion of Class objects, then
we have to start worrying about the inheritance of that state, just
like we do with normal Class inheritance.

C++ MI sucks. Java interfaces suck. Ruby has it just right.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca