> It seems like a good plan to me, but the lack of a 
> public String.include() method makes me think this is a 
> very rare plan.

It might be rare because in reality this is not so much a
problem IMHO, despite some people claiming it could be. (I had
an angry IRC "discussion" with a C# proponent over this, I
really dislike people iterating about the "danger" of concepts
despite others applying them for many years without any
problem ... )

What could be nice is to store different "states" of ruby classes
and restore to them at user's will. (Or additionally restore the
"start" the state of slowly "evolved" ruby classes as well).

I mean both standard classes (more important) and user-built
ones (less important, IMHO). It is interesting to see that
someone like the sandbox of _why was more an afterthought
than an initial design idea. I think there is plenty of
more room in this direction, who knows... maybe in a few
years. Ruby is like the OOP language that goes towards
new paradigms - with class derived objects - the most easiest.

Ruby is great but it is not perfect for everyone or every
use case. And since 99% of new languages will have crappy
syntax, the most likely language to beat Ruby will be ...

Ruby! :-)
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.