--
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/tBsasSqKY8jV0TavxKMcy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Iw1eAYIdg5lZLYDLhi5--