Re: New Java integration features

> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>> This extensive support of Ruby naming may be going too far. I'm
>> really looking for opinions on this, to see whether it's too much. In
>> general my primary goal was to allow users to use either straight-up
>> Java names or various gradations of Ruby names, all the way to the
>> most Ruby-like = or ? underscored names. So those extreme cases work
>> and all intermediate cases work. But is it excessive?
>
> There is another small issue here: extending concrete classes. Because
> in the extension/override case there's usually already existing
> methods of that name, the Ruby naming logic I added for interfaces
> doesn't work.
>
> The way I justify it for the moment is that overriding methods from a
> concrete or abstract superclass is about replacing exactly the
> same-named method. But of course there's an argument to be made that
> you should be able to replace that method with any of its Ruby
> analogs. So, what do you think? If I have this code in Java:
>
> public class Foo {
>   public Object getBar() { ... }
>   public void setBar(Object bar) { ... }
> }
>
> Should I be able to do this:
>
> class RubyFoo < Foo
>   def bar; my_getBar_logic; end
>   def bar=(x); my_setBar_logic; end
> end
>