[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: Is this old style Ruby?
From:       Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk () rawuncut ! elitemail ! org>
Date:       2005-02-15 16:32:08
Message-ID: 20050215163148.GB5423 () puritan ! pcp ! ath ! cx
[Download RAW message or body]

* David A. Black (Feb 15, 2005 17:10):
> > Well class-methods are constant as well in a sense, hence the use of
> > "::" in Why's book and it being the (at least old-school) idiom,

> I disagree; I don't think class methods are constant in any sense, any
> more than any other method definition.  They're basically just
> per-object/singleton method definitions:

True.  Still, there's a subtle difference.  I agree, however, that
there's really no good reason to use "::" in this case; I certainly
write

File.open ...

rather than

File::open ...

which is one symbol longer and doesn't make it easier to read,
	nikolai

-- 
::: name: Nikolai Weibull    :: aliases: pcp / lone-star / aka :::
::: born: Chicago, IL USA    :: loc atm: Gothenburg, Sweden    :::
::: page: www.pcppopper.org  :: fun atm: gf,lps,ruby,lisp,war3 :::
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]