Hi --

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Trans wrote:

>
> ara.t.how... / noaa.gov wrote:
>
>> i really think people are not seeing the forest for the trees.  the issue with
>> send/send! is not the name: it's that the concept of both needing certain
>> methods to work a certain way and allowing, even encouraging via the
>> popularity of dsl like syntaxes in ruby, that those same methods can be easily
>> clobbered sets up a loosey-goosey mess that those of us who require our code
>> to run un-attended for months on end get stomach cramps over.
>
> ara's right. having something like Pervasives would clean this whole
> mess up.

I'm not sure I think Ruby has to give priority to being able to serve
as host language for sub-languages that are in conflict with the core
methods and idioms of Ruby.

> though i want to point out, as things are, I think _why has pointed us
> in the right direction when it comes to open apis. using dot-based
> method_missing is passe. use '/' instead a la Hpricot.

It's not a winner-take-all thing,though; just use whatever makes sense
for what you're doing.  (Not that I want to encourage the magic dot
:-) (But still, there are lots of possibilities.)

I admit I don't like the name "Pervasives".  I could imagine some
class methods on Kernel, possibly, as a kind of back-stop for the
regular existing methods (i.e., I don't want to *have* to do the more
functional style if I don't want to).


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)