Hi --

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, ara.t.howard / noaa.gov wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
>
>> 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.

Ah ha, my OO-er than thou claim comes back to haunt me! :-)  I
actually don't usually talk in terms of more/less OO, and I know I'm
guilty of introducing that into this discussion... but I will say that
I don't think "one object responsible" is a principle of OO.  It may
be that the ability to override send is a problem, but
obj.send("message") is, I think, a pretty object-oriented way to go
about things.


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)