you're talking over my head francis, i am a beginner. I have no idea 
what strongly typed even means to be honest.


Francis Cianfrocca wrote:
> A lot of people have the mistaken notion that Ruby is not "strongly 
> typed"
> (perhaps because they confuse dynamic type-resolution with weak typing), 
> and
> this is a good counterexample. You might suppose that Ruby could infer 
> from
> the syntax info[]= that it should create an object of type Array, but in
> fact the method named []= is defined on other classes (such as Hash), 
> and
> could of course be defined or meta-defined in your own classes. So Ruby
> doesn't try to guess what class you meant.


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.