In article <PKfN7.54447$RG1.29528192 / news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, David
Simmons <david.simmons / smallscript.com> wrote:

> > The same is
> > true for methods, where I have in my head and in my program the concept
> > of getting a character at a particular location in the array, and it
> > would make more sense to use a valueAtLocation method instead of the
> > characterAtIndex method the vendor liked.
> 
> This is also solved, safely, for you, with selector namespaces (and can
> also
> be done via different means with selector aliasing, or AOP services).

Actually, once you have proper class aliasing, it doesn't really
require any special additions as it then essentially becomes a wrapper
method.  Unless you're saying that you want the runtime to use the same
selector, which might be useful in some circumstances.

> Well, that's why dynamic languages that are "real-OO" with full reflection
> and rich MOP services for extending them are much better than the popular
> "object-oriented" languages.

And that's also why support of something greater (which SmallScript
seems to have) than basic namespace support is critical.  I'm just
keeping my fingers crossed that more languages don't start using a
limited Java-like model when they add these kinds of features . . .