On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 dblack / wobblini.net 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.

it already has.  it's called 'rake' and 'rails' and 'xml builder' and 'rant'
and 'xx' and 'rhdl' and etc etc...

you've read the rails source so i know you know what i'm talking about.

>
> 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).
>

precisely!  i'm not hung up on the name either, and i'm NOT advocating
removing any existing methods whatsoever: just the creation of a single
backdoor instead of '__method__', or 'method!' crazy proliferation: it simply
does not scale, is not robust, and has code smell in the sense that the
containment is not OO (one object repsonsible) but is scattered all over the
place via naming conventions.

cheers.

-a
-- 
in the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.
- the dalai lama