From: Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-04-02T07:49:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Kernel.load() behaviour


Con fecha 1/4/2005, "Brian Mitchell" <binary42@gmail.com> escribi�:

>On Apr 1, 2005 2:44 PM, Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> wrote:
>> On Friday 01 April 2005 22:37, Brian Mitchell wrote:
>> > On Apr 1, 2005 11:48 AM, Aredridel <aredridel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Not quite; Each of the 000s of packages is in it's own file....  ;)
>> > >
>> > > eval "module Packages\n" << `cat *.rb` << "\nend"
>> > >
>> > > ;-)
>> >
>> > module Packages
>> > end
>> >
>> > Packages.module_eval( `cat glibc.rb`, 'glibc.rb`) # A little more elegant.
>> >
>>
>> Almost perfect, but this avoids the external 'cat' dependency:
>>
>> Packages.module_eval( IO.readlines('glibc.rb').join, 'glibc.rb')
>>
>> I learned some more ruby today. Thanks all!
>
>One more idea that lets one use load and allows anonymous modules:
>
>glibc.rb:
>class Glibc
>end
>
>some_file.rb:
>module Packages
>end
>
>class Package
>  def self.inherited(sub)
>    Packages.const_set(sub.name.split("::").last, sub)
>  end
>end
>
>load 'glibc.rb', true
>
># Packages.constants == ["Glibc"]

This will still pollute the namespace, though, at
the initial loading. That seemed to be Andrew's
concern.

>I also have an idea on how to do this with load my appending the
>anonymous module BUT I couldn't get Module.nesting to work and it
>seems ruby take some shortcuts in creation of the anon Module. If I
>can fix this then we'll all be able to load into specific modules
>which would be nice.

I submitted an RCR about this type of load behaviour (specifically
to enable the client programmer define a namespace for an imported
module rather than having the library author do it).

While the solutions here are likely suitable for this particular
situation, the more general problem is trying to load a file like
this:

class String
  def my_string_extension()
    # ...
  end
end

module MyModule
  class MyClass
    # ...
  end
end

The presumed extension of the standard String class will instead
create a new String class in the enveloping module.

>Brian.

E