"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 12:30:20AM +0200, Pixel wrote: > > FYI Ruby has: > > > > a.type <= b.type or a.type == b.type > > > > [...] > > Well, it comes from set notation - and you used the prefixes 'sub' and > 'super' exactly as they are used in sets. :) [...] > Anyway, if you regard a class as the set of objects which can be > treated as instances of that class, then use of a Rubylike notation > (and the terms 'subclass' and 'superclass') follows logically.
i do understand this notation [*], but i don't know if it's *readable*. many people prefer: a.isa(b.type) by the way, this notation seems to come from smalltalk. and <=> on incompatible types now return an exception in Ruby 1.7 [*] i'm trying to develop a programming language (merd) which is very based on subtyping/supertying. -- Pixel http://merd.net merd = Perl-Python-Ruby-alike expressivity + static type checks (a la Haskell)
