From: Bill Atkins <batkins57@...>
Date: 2005-01-06T01:13:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Composition or Module

Modules generally add functionality to another module or class.  Since
they can't be made into objects on their own, I think adjectives are
more module names than nouns.  Basically, by including this module,
you're making a class able to represent itself  (i.e. the class
becomes Representable).  matz follows the same convention with the
Enumerable and Comparable classes in Ruby.

Bill

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:00:03 +0900, Ruth A. Kramer <rhkramer@fast.net> wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
> > Module seems more natural to me, but maybe "Representable" would be a
> > better name.
> 
> I'm just a newbie/lurker, but I wonder why you suggest that, particulary
> in that Representable is (so far) an adjective rather than a noun.  I'm
> fairly sure nouns serve better as names for objects--is it different for
> modules?
> 
> (That's not to say a new usage of representable as a noun could not be
> "coined".  (My reference for the adjective bit is the current online
> Merriam-Webster (m-w.com:
> http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=representable&x=10&y=15)
> 
> Just trying to clarify my own thinking.
> 
> regards,
> Randy Kramer
> 
> 


-- 
$stdout.sync = true
"Just another Ruby hacker.".each_byte do |b|
  ('a'..'z').step do|c|print c+"\b";sleep 0.007 end;print b.chr
end; print "\n"