From: Chris Carter <cdcarter@...>
Date: 2007-07-14T12:24:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Inheritable mixin

On 7/13/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Inheritable mixin"
>     on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 05:14:02 +0900, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |What do you think of making Class not inherit Module, but instead make
> |them separate classes that both mixin "Inheritable" (or whatever you'd
> |like to call it)?
>
> By separating modules and classes, we get class hierarchy design
> clarity at the cost of little bit language complexity.  Making
> mixin (modules) inheritable means introducing "full" multiple
> inheritance in the language.  I don't think it's worth changing the
> language we live happily without full MI.
>
> |The thought occurred to me while organizing Facets. I've been locking
> |at what methods might fit together into organization units, ie,
> |mixins, so far I've been able to successfully develop Indexable and
> |Stackable.
>
> More concrete example please?  I am not sure the benefit of having
>
>   module Indexable
>   end
>
>   class Whatever < Indexable
>   end
>
> over
>
>   class Whatever
>     include Indexable
>   end
>
>                                                         matz.
>
>
>
>

Matz,
I believe he meant that it would be a mixin named Inheritable, so:
class Class
  include Inheritable
end

class Module
  include Inheritable
end


-- 
Chris Carter
concentrationstudios.com
brynmawrcs.com