From: Pit Capitain <pit@...>
Date: 2007-03-03T07:20:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Module re-inclusion in 1.9 vs 1.8

Rick DeNatale schrieb:
> This is a different issue I believe.
> (...)
> The implementation marks each of these pseudo classes as a T_ICLASS
> (included class).  Each of these pseudo-class points to the method and
> iv_tables of the associated module. The whole chain is then inserted
> between the including class and it's existing super.

Yes, I know. If you think about it, you have to do this only if you want 
to preserve the current behaviour. If the module inclusion semantics 
would be changed as you suggest, this wouldn't be necessary anymore, so 
it would be possible to fix the "feature" I've shown. I just wanted to 
mention a positive side effect of your suggestion ;-)

Regards,
Pit