On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 10:00 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Roman Haefeli wrote:
i think, that the question, why a new object [pack] is named pack is not rhetoric at all and isn't answered yet. so lets go again: why is [pack] from zexy called [pack]?
apart from the specifics of [pack]: if a language allows the overriding of built-in methods, then i do not see why a social codex (which is what you are asking for, right?) should forbid it. especially, if a language introduces ways to override built-in methods after years of existance, it actually encourages the overriding of built-in methods.
yo.. your point is perfectly valid. call me stubborn, but i still don't see the goal of: a) allowing to override internals b) actually using that feature but you are right: there is no reason, that should discourage you from using the new feature.
i guess miller has spent countless of sleepless hours thinking and rethinking how to do this best, so we probably should adapt to it.
whatever conclusion miller came to, i didn't get it.
roman
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de