In article <91o57.24681$PF1.1169772 / e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com>, "Michael
Davis" <mdavis / sevainc.com> wrote:

> This was an excellent suggestion but only covers half of the issue:

Actually, that's what the other Michael said :-) ...

> But the other way round is not that easy, because you have to change all
> <=> methods of Ruby's classes.

The reason it's hard to get the other way around working is that, while
everything is a child of Object, and hence you could redefine <=> for
Object and catch a lot of the cases, any class that re-defines <=> will
be replacing whatever you write for Object.

Actually, come to think of it, one normally mixes in Enumerable when
writing a <=> method.  Perhaps there's some way that Enumerable could be
changed to make this work neatly.

Anyone have any ideas?