On Sep 2, 10:34 pm, Phrogz <phr... / mac.com> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 6:48 am, pongba <pon... / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a very general argument, what concerns me is ...
> [snip]
> > One might argue that [...] so the problem is moot.
> > But then there's two more problems:
>
> > 1. if we can't modify Matrix or Graph [...]
>
> > 2. if '1' doesn't matter (because in ruby we actually can add new
> > methods to an existing class), then can you please give another more
> > qualified example?
>
> What I hear you saying is:
>
>   There's a problem with what Matz describes, because...
>   OK, wait, that's not a problem.
>   But then there's this other problem:
>   Er, OK, that's not actually a problem either.
>   Can you please show me what the problem is?
>
> I think you've reasoned it out for yourself: there isn't a problem.
> Even if it were, the two other responses in this thread show you ways
> you could work around it if you needed to (which you don't).

lol
Basically you're right.
What I wanted was an example that can only be solved with overloading,
but then there's the ultimate type-switch trick, so.. :P