From: Csaba Henk <csaba@..._for_avoiding_spam.org>
Date: 2005-01-28T01:20:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Self and Ruby Comparisons

On 2005-01-26, ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> "C" == Csaba Henk <csaba@phony_for_avoiding_spam.org> writes:
>
>C> Is there a reason for being so, or just there was no reason to make one?
>
>    module A
>    end
>
>    module B
>       include A
>    end
>
>    class C
>       include A, B
>    end
>
>  now `uninclude B' (or `uninclude A') remove the module A or not ?

Well, to fix a simple policy with which you can't go wrong is not hard.

So, for example, you could only uninclude a module if other included
modules don't depend on that. That is, in the above situation trying to
uninclude A would raise an error.

>
>  ruby has lost the information that A was provided by A and B

I see. In this case, you are on the safe side, if you just drop A.
It's a very simple, unambigouous action. Then let the user do the
bookeeping, if it's necessary in some situation.

>  There is also : what do you do is someone write ?
>
>    class C
>       uninclude Kernel
>    end

Is there any danger to let this? You can undef all methods one by one 
now as well (leave "undef_method" for last :) ). If its problematic,
raise an error.

Csaba



>
>
>
> Guy Decoux
>
>
>
>