Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:32:37AM +0900, johan556 / gmail.com wrote:
>> I have been using the following pattern to implement multiple
>> constructors for a class. It is only a variation of the already
>> proposed solutions, but by using "instance_eval" I could avoid having
>> to create separate new/initialize-like methods for each constructor.
> 
> I've heard it said -- and I tend to agree -- that regular use of
> "patterns" is a sign that the language lacks something.  I wonder if
> that is the case with Ruby, as applies to multiple constructor behavior
> implementation.
> 
> I say "wonder" because I really am not certain in this case.

Hi Chad! I don't think Ruby "lacks" anything, it's just that it has a 
different way of doing things. It's a trade-off between the flexibility 
of a dynamic language and some other things like methods with same name 
and different parameters (how are you going to distinguish between one 
method that uses a string and an integer and another one that uses an 
integer and a hash, if you don't have types defined at the parameter 
level?). If you want to do things "like Java" or "like C++", then I 
think you should open your mind and try to do things in a different way, 
in a rubbish way.

Regards,

Nando

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