From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2006-06-09T11:38:49+09:00
Subject: Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?


On Jun 8, 2006, at 10:25 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?"
>     on Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:22:55 +0900, transfire@gmail.com writes:
>
> |Considering the above (which by the way should also have an 'include
> |Beanable'), a notation that has some similarity and is available for
> |use:
> |
> |   class Beanbag
> |     self << Beanable
> |   end
>
> I like this more than others, but I worry about that this is less
> descriptive than other at the same time.  For example, how one can
> know whether "include" does not injects module methods, where "<<"
> does.
>
> 							matz.
>

well we have class << self, which involves singleton methods

why not
class Beanbag
  include << Beanable
end

which would also involve singleton methods? (Of course then include  
has to be a keyword (or "include <<" at least))