2 ms·

Nope. In is_subtype: > # If `sub` is a formal type, then it is accepted if its bound is accepted https://github.com/privat/nit/blob/2323b17d46c873e8c6c41b75d0d

by Tobu 12y ago

Nope. In is_subtype: > # If `sub` is a formal type, then it is accepted if its bound is accepted https://github.com/privat/nit/blob/2323b17d46c873e8c6c41b75d0d9ad0d29b51337/src/model/model.nit#L695 https://github.com/privat/nit/blob/2323b17d46c873e8c6c41b75d... Ruby is dynamic and the interpreter is feature-rich. People are just exercising self-discipline. Nit intends to be “a robust statically typed programming language” which is very different. Also, could you point me to the Nim feature? All I see is overloading.

klibertp 12y ago
> Nope. In is_subtype [...] Oh, ok. So it does look a bit broken then :) > Also, could you point me to the Nim feature? That follows from the fact that `something.method()` is just a syntactic sugar for `method(something)` and that you can write methods for any type anywhere. The example I specifically had in mind was strutils module, which extends a string type with many useful methods. Now that I think about it I'm not sure how Nim would handle two methods of the same name for the same type defined in different places. I think it would refuse to compile such code? But that's a guess only, I'd need to check. EDIT: oh, and I see you complained about redefinition specifically, not about the ability to extend classes in general. Sorry, I somehow missed it.