On 22 April 2012 18:01, Intransition <transfire / gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it's funny you should ask. That has always been Matz' ¨Âïôòåáóïî > against the idea. He "hates" multiple inheritance and he sees this as such. That's ... absurd; the 'include' statement is the paragon of multiple inheritance. I always thought that the search path from class to modules to superclass and so on was a brilliant solution to such a frequently murky and messy topic. My worldview is somewhat shaken now. >> I guess I have a hole in my instinctive response for the right >> approach to 'modules as a namespace', since I usually use them as >> interfaces/multiple-inheritance/mixins. > > I have considered forking Rubinius and implementing this --but I am not 100% > sure how involved it would be. I'm sorry, implementing what, precisely? -- Matthew Kerwin, B.Sc (CompSci) (Hons) http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/ ABN: 59-013-727-651 "You'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas." - xkcd