[ruby-core:18275] Re: Am I right that this is wrong?

Hi --

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:18263] Am I right that this is wrong?"
>    on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:33:18 +0900, "David A. Black" <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> |  *  call-seq:
> |  *     mod.instance_methods(include_super=true)   => array
> |  *
> |  *  Returns an array containing the names of public instance methods
> |  *  in the receiver. For a module, these are the public methods; for a
> |  *  class, they are the instance (not singleton) methods. With no
> |  *  argument, or with an argument that is <code>false</code>, the
> |  *  instance methods in <i>mod</i> are returned, otherwise the methods
> |  *  in <i>mod</i> and <i>mod</i>'s superclasses are returned.
> |
> |Since include_super defaults to true, I believe the "With no argument"
> |statement is wrong. These arbitrary boolean arguments are definitely
> |confusing, so I just wanted to make sure I'm right that it's wrong.
>
> The documentation is wrong, as you say.  If many prefer the documented
> behavior and want to change it, it is another story.

There was a discussion about this at the Ruby Hoedown. As Jim Weirich
pointed out, the nice thing about doing it the other way around is
that you could do:

   MyClass.instance_methods(:ancestors => true)

or

   MyClass.instance_methods(:with_ancestors)

or whatever, whereas to make the argument false, you have to use false
or nil which is very cryptic.


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
  *  Advancing With Rails    August 18-21    Edison, NJ
  * Co-taught by D.A. Black and Erik Kastner
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!