On 22 April 2012 18:01, Intransition <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it's funny you should ask. That has always been Matz'  
> 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