Gary Wright wrote:
> I find it mildly annoying that 'alias' doesn't actually alias the
> method (i.e. multiple names for the same thing).  Instead, alias
> just replicates an existing method body and associates a new
> name with the replica. Seems like 'replicate' would be a better
> keyword for the current semantics.
> 
> I also have the inability to ever remember which argument to alias
> is the new name and which argument is the old name.
> 
> Did 'alias' work differently in the early days of Ruby such that
> the semantics changed but not the keyword?

+1 to all of above, albeit mildly for me too.

In practice I usually end up with

   def myalias(*a,&b); orig(*a,&b); end

even if it started out as an "alias". I don't mind not having a language 
construct for this purpose, since the above is so compact and clear.

-- 
       vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407