From: Daniel Brockman <daniel@...>
Date: 2005-07-28T01:49:02+09:00
Subject: Re: What's so special about operators, built-in classes and modules?

Hmm, for some reason this part of your message was left out
of my reply buffer, so I forgot to reply to it!

"Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov> writes:

>>> That's not instantiating a module. It's cute, but it's
>>> not instantiating a module.
>>
>> Of course it's not instantiating a module, but it's
>> pretty much _as good as_ instantiating a module.  It lets
>> you use modules instead of classes, which demonstrates
>> that the distinction is superficial.
>
> does it?
>
> [Complicated way of saying module.new.class != module.]

As I trust you are already aware, that's easily fixed:
Just redefine the ‘class’ method to return the module.

> and, of course, you still can't inherit from M - but i
> realize this needed be so.

Yes, you can:

   module N
     include M
   end

-- 
Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>

    So really, we all have to ask ourselves:
    Am I waiting for RMS to do this?   --TTN.