Ryan Davis wrote in post #1082683:
> On Nov 3, 2012, at 16:30 , Mean L. <lists / ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>
>> to wait for an answer instead of repeating, "it's the rule".
>>
>> AFAICT it should be sufficient to test that the object you are binding
>> to is_a?(owner) (Base.new.is_a?(sub_foo.owner))
>>
>> This would also make base_foo and sub_foo equal as they refer to the
>> same foo in base.
>
> Unfortunately, the answer really is because "it's the rule".
>
> The slightly longer answer is "because Matz is worried we'll try to bind
> a C method (eg Array#join) to a different class and cause a crash".

I am not following this logic.  Binding a method to an object that is_a? 
method's owner, should be completely safe, there is no danger of 
crashes.  I think you are thinking of an even looser (duck) binding, 
which may have merits, but it's not what I am asking about.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.