Re: Scoping and locating definitions

On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 02:44:49AM +0900, Sam Roberts wrote:
> So replace Process with your class:
> 
> Process = Class.new # Causes a warning, as well it should, but you
>   # want to do it anyhow...
> 
> class Process
>   #...
> end
 
Personally I think that's ugly. Except for some primitive classes I shouldn't
even be able to access it unless I specifically ask for it, just like I don't
get the Thread class unless I `require "thread"'. The idea is to reduce
namespace pollution and possibly unwanted side-effects.

> One day you may use a library that uses Process, and then you may regret
> this, it would be more typical to put your Process in a module:
> 
> module MyModule
>   class Process
>     #...
>   end
> 
>   class ProcessUser
>     def use
>        Process.new.increase_speed!
>     end
> 
>   end
> 
> end

While I agree that this is good practice, by default at least some of the
currently-standard classes should be in their own module already. Perhaps all
except for a number of primitive types.  One could then access these other
classes using something along the lines of `using namespace std;' in C++.

Thanks for the feedback, Sam.

-- 
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com