Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:41:06 +0900, Overnight <NOSPAM_jazz_x / libero.it_NOSPAM> pisze:

> i.e., I was tempted to avoid the 'M.*' syntax, except when absolutely 
> needed (to specify the namespace in which m() is defined, in this case). 
> But... this is just too Perlish or Pythonesque, I'm afraid... I must 
> upgrade my mind to an OO view :-)

Let me say that I deliberately avoided reading again the details
of Ruby's instance / singleton methods, include / extend, . / ::,
where names are looked up, how self is set, and the class / module
hierarchy near Object, Kernel, Module etc.

I know the basics and could learn more if I needed to use Ruby more
in practice. But I wanted to see if they are intuitive enough to
understand them from discussions here, not by reading formal rules
but by observing how they are used.

The result is that I didn't get them. Either my mind is too influenced
by other languages (mainly functional, I'm not an OO fan) or OO is
a bit unintuitive. Why each language has very different rules for
that metaclass stuff?

-- 
  __("<      Marcin Kowalczyk
  \__/     qrczak / knm.org.pl
   ^^    http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/