-- Iw1eAYIdg5lZLYDLhi5 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2007-10-07 at 05:57 +0900, Sylvain Joyeux wrote: > > That's because, since mixins aren't abstract (like interfaces), they > > represent a limited form of MI. The limitations on Ruby modules only > > mitigate the issues inherent in MI, not eliminate them. But .. do you > > really want to make the issues worse by relaxing the restrictions? > > I think that programmers should have the right to do their own decisions. > If they don't feel like using MI, fine. But an anti-MI religion. I'm just concerned that people are asking for them without being willing to accept the consequences of MI in a dynamic language (even after getting a small taste of them via modules and not liking them). > I already used MI in C++ (and yes, for "is-a" relations, cut the > you-should-not-use-inheritance crap) and I have seen people using MI in > very elegant ways. I've used (and use) it in C++ occasionally, but C++'s nature makes for a very different set of trade-offs than Ruby. Since you weren't very happy with linearization, is there a different conflict resolution technique suitable to a dynamic language which you would prefer to see in a fully MI Ruby? -mental -- Iw1eAYIdg5lZLYDLhi5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHCAghSuZBmZzm14ERAqKJAKCSZtLliqEVOx7z0i+2VmFP1h1xbwCgv0Ck ED1/tBsasSqKY8jV0TavxKM cy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Iw1eAYIdg5lZLYDLhi5--