Hi --

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:

> dblack / candle.superlink.net writes:
> >
> > At a fundamental level, I'm not getting how method signatures and
> > dispatching on type could be "added" to Ruby, such that Ruby was
> > still, so to speak, Ruby.  Among other things, once that option
> > existed, I think we'd see a lot of code where there was only one
> > version of a method, but it was still typed.
>
> As Matz pointed out overloading would be in the spirit of Ruby

Right, but that's the part I don't get :-)  I'm picturing things like:

  def meth(Integer n, String s)
  ...
  def meth(Float f, String s)
  ...

and somewhere along the line I'm not clear on how that fits into the
spirit/design/philosophy of Ruby.


David

-- 
David Alan Black                      | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net     | November 1-3
work: blackdav / shu.edu                | Seattle, WA, USA
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com