[ruby-core:105867] [Ruby master Feature#11919] Passing a module directly

Issue #11919 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans).


Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) wrote in #note-11:
> @jeremyevans0 may I ask why you closed this? Matz has not rejected this idea. He only rejected `refine X do` (#14344) because `refine` should not have such different behavior for class vs module.

@matz pretty much rejected `using do` as well (https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14344#note-15): `the modified syntax using do is also confusing`.  So that's why I closed this (this feature is for `using do`).

> Although there's also `refining X do` (#16241) which may be a better choice since it has Matz' pre-approval.

Not sure where you are seeing pre-approval by @matz in #16241. I guess in the description it says that @matz indicated `refining` seems like a better name than `using_refined`, but that doesn't sound like pre-approval to me.  #16241 hasn't been rejected yet, though.  Personally, I'm not in favor of adding another method for this, so I wouldn't submit a pull request to implement that.

----------------------------------------
Feature #11919: Passing a module directly 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11919#change-94405

* Author: sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada)
* Status: Rejected
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
Refinement requires a named module:

~~~ruby
module MyRefinement
  refine ...
  ...
end

using MyRefinement
~~~

but often (but not always), refinements are called by the `using` command only in once in a single file, and should not need to be named in such case. Also, the purpose of refinement is to not pollute classes with methods. Necessity to define a module and polluting the name space looks to me to go against this idea.

I would like to do:

~~~ruby
using Module.new do
  refine ...
  ...
end
~~~




-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>