From: "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...>
Date: 2005-07-28T03:15:14+09:00
Subject: Re: What's so special about operators, built-in classes and modules?

--8323328-2109231869-1122488111=:4734
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-2109231869-1122488111=:4734"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323328-2109231869-1122488111=:4734
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Daniel Brockman wrote:

> "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov> writes:
>
>>>> 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
>>
>> the problem is a bit deeper than that and stem from the
>> fact that including a module does not inject the included
>> modules singleton methods into the 'includee'.
>
> Right, but to me that is just another reason to unify.
> How is this inconsistency a feature?  Why is it not fixed?
>
> Does any code depend on the fact that including a module
> does not pull in its singleton methods?

i'd say __all__ code depends on that.  otherwise

   module M
     def self::new
       raise
     end
   end
   class < C
     include M
   end

   c =3D C::new

i'd imagine this is the (one of) reason(s) for the current behaviour.

> Yes, I use similar hacks too.  But don't you agree that it
> would be nicer if modules and classes were consistent in
> this regard, rendering these hacks unnecessary?

yes - i just am not seeing how it could be done in a way that preserved or
added to current functionality and was simpler.  inheritence needs to be
addressed specifically for it to make sense.

> (I realize that I'm shifting the discussion instead of
> meeting your arguments.)
>
>> (ps. for some reason the charset from your message is very
>> odd - it may be on my end but thought you might like to
>> know.  it looks like some sort of escape chars around '@'
>> signs - coloring?)
>
> Hmm... sounds weird.  I do tend to use Unicode characters,
> specifically quotation marks.  How does this look?
>
>                  =E2=80=98foo=E2=80=99    =E2=80=9Cbar=E2=80=9D

like this

   .[0m~@~Xfoo.[0m~0~X    .[0m~@~\bar.[0m~@~]

> It's supposed to be the word foo in single quotes followed
> by the word bar in double quotes.

tough to see that ;-)

cheers.

-a
--=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| phone :: 303.497.6469
| My religion is very simple.  My religion is kindness.
| --Tenzin Gyatso
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

--8323328-2109231869-1122488111=:4734--
--8323328-2109231869-1122488111=:4734--