bbense+comp.lang.ruby.Sep.26.02 / telemark.stanford.edu wrote:
...
> - - This is not Ruby. If you really want typed arguements, then you
> should not be using ruby. It isn't for everybody. This overload
> proposal is nothing more than the camel's nose of strict typing
> peeking into the tent. 

As has been said recently, multiple dispatch is not type checking. If 
you believe that it is, why don't you believe that the following code 
shows that ruby has "typed arguments"

   "foo".reverse
   [1,2,3].reverse

Why do you feel differently about the receiver than about additional 
arguments? Mutliple dispatch just has more receivers...

BTW, many people would say (and have said) that Ruby is strictly (or 
strongly) typed. It's just not statically typed.