[ruby-core:33567] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4085][Open] Refinements and nested methods

Hi,

2010/12/3 Yusuke ENDOH <[e-mail]>:
>>> ... Oops! his does not work as excepted.  had believed that this
>>> would work... hy don't you allow this?
>>
>> Currently refine doesn't work without blocks, but do you mean that?
>
> Ah sorry.
>
> odule FooExt
> efine(Fixnum) do
> ef /(other); quo(other); end
> nd
> nd
> odule BarExt
> nclude FooExt # or using FooExt
> nd
> sing BarExt
>  1 / 2 #=> actual: 0, expected: (1/2)

I forgot to support it.  Please apply the attached patch.  I have also
added Kernel#refine.

>> I think it's hard to add new keywords by a gem. ave you abandoned
>> keywords?  prefer to the keyword refine to the method refine without
>> blocks suggested by you.
>
> I first said in [ruby-core:33375]:
>
>> However, we should discuss this topic (new keyword) towards
>> 2.0. odule's methods are not bad, as a part of reflection
>> features (such as Module#define_method for `def' keyword).
>
> Needless to say, we must not add any new keywords to 1.9.x, especially
> normal simple word like "refine." 'm ok to include this feature in
> 1.9.x, and now I believe that gem is a good idea as the first step.
>
> However, I received many negative comments to this approach (gem),
> from nars*, kosak*, ko*, nakad*, shyouhe*. hey seem to think that
> it is better to import your patch "as is".

I also wouldn't like to see such a language core feature in a gem.

>> Isn't it enough to introduce refinements as an experimental feature,
>> at least in trunk?
>
> I don't like to include a feature called "experimental", not because
> it is not complete yet, but because it becomes "de facto standard."
> It would be good if there are not only "document" but also "mechanism"
> to inform users that the feature is experimental, such as warning or
> a new method like "RubyVM.enable_experimental_features".

As far as I know, the current status of trunk is unstable, and if new
features break backward compatibility, Yugui will create the branch
ruby_1_9, won't you, Yugui?  So, we don't need the above mechanism
until new experimental features are decided to include to 1.9.x.

> Note that this is just my opinion, and that I seem to be in the
> minority ;-)
> I hope that 1.9.x would be stable, but many other committers seem to
> hope to include new feature in 1.9.x aggressively.

I also hope that 1.9.x would be stable, but I'd like to develop
aggressively in trunk.  I don't think the current design and
implementation of refinements are mature, but I can't make them mature
on my own, so I'd like to have help from other committers.

-- 
Shugo Maeda