From: Shugo Maeda <shugo@...>
Date: 2010-12-03T14:55:35+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:33539] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods

Hi,

2010/12/2 Yusuke ENDOH <mame@tsg.ne.jp>:
>> My proposal is to use modules as namespaces for refinements. �So
>> indentation is a necessary evil. �Otherwise, we need syntax like Java
>> packages and one file for each package.
>
> I'm not against using modules as namespaces and refinement scope,
> but I don't like to see the same module being used for refinement
> and traditional use at the same time.
> Modules for mix-in, modules for collection of helper methods, and
> modules for refinement should be separated, at least, in casual
> use.

I agree with you.  But I don't think Ruby should enforce it.

> We can clearly see that the following module FooExt is only for
> refinement. �Thus I like this style.
>
> �module FooExt
> � �refine Foo
> � �def ... end
> �end

I don't like this style as the primary way because it can be used for
only one class.
A namespace should be able to have multiple names.

>>> A longer (more "meta-programming-like") name would be appropriate to
>>> the block style, such as Module#refine_class, #refine_class_eval,
>>> #class_eval_with_refinement.
>>
>> Meta-programming means programming on programs, so the non-block style
>> is also a meta-programming feature. �Why should only the block style
>> be named more "meta-programming-like"?
>
> I can call it "not for casual use" instead of "meta-programming-
> like."

I see.

>> Could you tell me why
>>
>> �refine Foo
>> � �def bar; end
>> �end
>>
>> is good but
>>
>> �refine Foo do
>> � �def bar; end
>> �end
>>
>> is not so good?
>
> Because block includes method definition. �A block looks to me
> "dynamic" behavior, while method definition (using `def' keyword)
> looks "static" behavior.
> Of course I know that both are also evaluated dynamically in
> Ruby, but I don't think that Ruby encourages such a style so much.

method definitions don't look static for me, but nari said the same....
My brain might be too optimized for Ruby.

>> I don't know why meta-programming features should have long names.
>> In Ruby, meta-programming is encouraged, and meta-programming features
>> sometimes have a short name such as eval, but rarely have a keyword.
>
> Ah, we found the perception gap between I and you.
> I do NOT think that meta-programming is so encouraged even in Ruby.
> It is like "a trick," and should be used only when it is appropriate.
> If it was really so encouraged, Ruby would not provide many
> syntax, such as `def' and `class.'
>
> And I guess that "eval" just came from Perl.

I guess it's a problem of the term meta-programming, so let's not use
the word.  What I want to say is that I think use frequency of refine
is not so high to require a new keyword, but enough high to have a
nice method name.

To tell the truth, I can accept new keywords refine and using, but I'm
afraid it makes Refinements a Ruby 2.0 feature.

-- 
Shugo Maeda