"I decided not to introduce full refinement for Ruby 2.0."

Post by sasfasfasffas » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 5:05 AM UTC

dr_faustus wrote: post #10

I love Ruby with all my heart but that seems to be quite a mess. While a not-well-thought-through feature in some application can be forgiven (and maybe even removed), in language design it cetainly has no place. And while this should be a secondary consideration, I really feel for those poor JRuby and Rubinus guys. As if Ruby wasnt "dynamic" enough, the sheer complexity of implementing refinements must be awful! I t…

Post by steveklabnik » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 6:17 PM UTC

sasfasfasffas wrote: post #20

Steve, I agree with you that this is a lot of change for something in preview, but didn't Rails 3 have some last minute changes before its release as well, and 3.1 was a big jump also? Matz, Shugo, and Charlie will figure it out soon enough, but it is interesting. What is more upsetting to me really is the version number. 2.0 implies some major changes, but 1.9 was more major. It should be 1.10, and then they should…

Post by jtdowney » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 10:02 PM UTC

dstorrs wrote: post #15

Ok, tell me if I have this correct: module Foo def hello puts "Hello World" end end ...in a different file... foo = Foo.new.msg Q: What does that print? A: There is no way to tell. It depends on what the 'using' line (not shown) is, and whether anything has refined 'Foo'. Seems like bad action at a distance, to me. Or am I missing something? The example about the effects of refining 'each' is also pretty disconcertin…