"ts" <decoux / moulon.inra.fr> wrote in message
news:200209271703.g8RH3nx00311 / moulon.inra.fr...
> >>>>> "C" == Christoph  <chr_news / gmx.net> writes:
>
> >> ./d.rb:9: Possible ambiguous call M [B] -- A [Array] (NameError)
>
> C> Isn't this the same ambiguity you get with regular inheritance?
>
>  yes, do you remember what do ruby with an included class ?
>
>  In my example you have internally
>
>   A ===> [M] ===> Object
>
>  this give  A < [M]
>  and it has B < Array
>
>  ([M], B) -- (A ,Array) is ambiguous
>
> C> If you buy into the evil multi-dispatch you either
> C> have live with occasional ambiguity-errors or
> C> use some sort  of ambiguity resolution mechanism.
>
>  You really think that it's different from multi-dispatch ? :-)))))

In a variation of a famous line of one of my favorite
former American presidents  "It all depend what the
meaning of it is" ;-)))

I assume that you are wondering if using ambiguity
resolution makes is a big change in the use of multi-dispatch?
No I don't think so, it is just a variation of multiple dispatch
(kind of similar to the in my mind minor difference between
overloading and the supposable evil multi-methods;-).

/Christoph