"ts" wrote
....
> C> This  runs squarely against a prominent argument of the
> C>  ``anti multi-method camp''   that Ruby's  ``open classes''
> C> (a very descriptive term btw.)  somehow reduce the need
> C> of method overloading.
>
>  Well expect that you forget that

Maybe this is also a good time to mention that the ``problems''
you foresaw when playing around with your own overloading
implementation was imo caused by the fact that you allowed
modules (such as Enumerable) as (multi-)method signature types.

Had you only allowed genuine classes as signature types, you
probably would not have run into any major (non-performance)
problem.

 /Christoph