Robert Dober <robert.dober / gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Brian Adkins <lojicdotcom / gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert Dober <robert.dober / gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Brian Adkins <lojicdotcom / gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Robert Dober <robert.dober / gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> There is an old joke: How do you call a dear without eyes? No idea!
>>> And how do you call a dear without eyes and legs? Still no idea.
>>> Unfortunately the later applies to what you say :(
>>> Can you give an example please.
>>
>> I have no idear what you're talking about above, but the following
>> might help:
> You got it :)
>>
>> http://gigamonkeys.com/book/object-reorientation-generic-functions.html
> Well Ruby does not have method composition but everything, especially
> the generic part, is super-seeded by the dynamic typing model.

I think you've reached an erroneous conclusion - Ruby's dynamic typing
model certainly does not supercede generic functions. I'd suggest
taking another look at the article (focusing on the Multimethods
section), or finding other sources of info on generic functions.

This is not a slight against Ruby; both models have pros/cons;
although, generic functions are a generalization of message passing,
so, if anything, generic functions supercede message passing.

Anyway, I think I've caused us to veer off topic - this is
comp.lang.ruby, not comp.lang.lisp, so back to our beloved Ruby :)

> Robert
>
> -- 
> Ne baisse jamais la tů’e, tu ne verrais plus les Ů’oiles.
>
> Robert Dober ;)
>

-- 
Brian Adkins
http://www.lojic.com/
http://lojic.com/blog/