Re: Inheritable mixin

On 7/14/07, Yukihiro Matsumoto <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Inheritable mixin"
>     on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:24:44 +0900, "Chris Carter" <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> |Matz,
> |I believe he meant that it would be a mixin named Inheritable, so:
>
> Perhaps I read him wrong.  But it doesn't still make sense.  Modules
> are still not inheritable.  You don't inherit from modules.  So
> "Inheritable" is a plain wrong name for it.
>
> Factoring out methods shared by classes and modules into a module
> doesn't make sense either, since those methods highly depends on
> internal structure of classes/modules.
>
> I might have agreed if he proposed Module not to be a superclass of
> Class, just like we did for Method and UnboundMethod.

That's exactly what I am proposing. But, Module and Class do share
many of the same methods, just not all of them. It makes sense to have
the commonality incorporated into a mixin, whatever you want to call
it. The name isn't important, I just choice Inheritable because they
both do have behavioral "inheritance" --I mean I don't know what else
you'd call it -- when I mixin a module I use #super in my overrides,
it goes in the hierarchy via a proxy class, etc. In any case, most of
the methods have to do with defining methods, so maybe a name along
those lines would be better, say, Definable.

T.