Hal Fulton wrote:
> 
> Do you really want to implement every possible output
> method for every class, rather than just defining them
> for the thing that actually does the output, and then
> passing in a parameter?

No, not in the core language.  But in specific application code, if I 
find myself frequently passing one object to another so that the 
reviever can act in the first object's data, I often find it 
conceptually cleaner, easier to read, and easier to maintain to move 
that behavior into the object that owns the data.

So, if I had some code that frequently required the sin or cos of 
integers, I might prefer to see sin and cos as methods of Integer.  And 
Ruby makes this easy to do.

> 
> No flame intended. Obviously we'll have to agree to
> disagree here.

But first we have to agree to agree to disagree :)


James

> 
> Hal
> 
> 
>