From: Matt Mower <matt.mower@...>
Date: 2005-01-25T20:08:38+09:00
Subject: Re: top-level object? top-level methods?

> A require 'convenience' could, imo, emulate the current situation
> without requiring the clutter.
> 

It occurs to me that, as well as being a bad pun, this isn't clear. 
What I meant was you could add all the convenience methods using a
"convenience" module which could be required when necessary.  This
module in turn might require other, fine grained, modules where
independent functionalities like "print" could live.

I guess, philosophically, I'm of the Ruby Facets mindset.  I'd rather
have smaller, finegrained, functionalities that could be bound in when
I need them (as long as it's still convenient when I do, and I think
that it is).

Regards,

Matt
-- 
Matt Mower :: http://matt.blogs.it/