> >
> >But, Josh, there isn't much "type" to overload
> based
> >on in Ruby.  I know where you're coming from,
> though.
> 
> Of course there are types in Ruby.  Variables don't
> have a fixed type, and both types and methods can
> be created dynamically, but there are types, and
> every Ruby object has one.
> 

That's why I said there wasn't "much" type.  Variables
don't have a fixed type--including those that appear
as part of method signatures.

Of course, you could add some kind of typing for
method signatures (maybe only *some* method
signatures), but imagine the resulting ambiguity of
mixing code that's not very strict about type and code
that is somewhat strict about type.  Sounds like a
nightmare to me.

As a converting Java-to-Ruby programmer, I still get
hung up on typing.  The same is true of all my Java
friends who are moving on to loosely typed languages. 
Somehow, we all yearn for some strictness--especially
with regard to defining interfaces.  Strange, isn't
it?  It's almost like we're all obsessed with writing
contracts.  Maybe we should have been lawyers.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/