On 2008-02-06 15:56 +0900 (Wed), Eivind Eklund wrote:

> On Feb 6, 2008 2:20 AM, rule.rule.rule / gmail.com
> <rule.rule.rule / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I added some paragraphs to the Ruby article on Wikipedia:
> > ...
> > - Is Ruby strongly typed?
> 
> Def 8 seems to be wrong; you're looking at what a variable refers to,
> rather than the object type.

I see what you mean here, he should be leaving the variable referring to
the same object, and changing the object itself.

> The object type is constant throughout object lifetime in Ruby....

Well, it depends on how you define "type". It's certainly possible,
without C code, to modfy the behaviour of enough methods on an object
(via defining singleton methods), say a String, to make a reasonable
claim that it's no longer a String but a Number. If it looks like a
duck, and quacks like a duck....


>> On Feb 5, 2008 7:20 PM, rule.rule.rule / gmail.com 
>> <rule.rule.rule / gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Criticism
>>> - Lack of variable declarations

I'd definitely go with this one. I've been bitten so many times
by doing something along the lines of

    foo ||= "blah"

Only to realize that, though it "feels" like a read of an accessor, it's
actually the creation of a local variable. (Usually it bites me in more
complex situations than this, but this is the general gist.)

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs / starling-software.com>        +81 90 7737 2974   
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com