On 7/28/05, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Besides all of them, I don't understand why this issue arise again
> and again. _I_ encourage mixin inheritance. It is powerful enough
> to solve the problem in single inheritance (sharing code between
> classes beyond inheritance line, without copy&paste). It is much
> simpler and easier to use than multiple inheritance. Why people
> want "real" multiple inheritance by unifying classes and modules,
> when Ruby's mixin inheritance works quite well? Why people want
> unnecessary complexity? Just because other languages do? I'm
> curious.

This is just my opinion, Matz, and not any particular insight into
Daniel's or Devin's thinking, but it's based on the common patterns
that I've seen between people who tend to advocate the unification
of class and module.

It seems to me that these people are interested in Ruby becoming
theoretically conceptually clean as well as pragmatically clean. It
seems to me that they're saying "these things are *almost* the same;
why can't they be the same?" This is without regard for the
practical problems of such unification, but purely for the aesthetic
theoretical cleanliness.

This is part of the reason I responded to Daniel a while back saying
that I couldn't see a single reason for the unification of the two
concepts. I still can't.

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