From: Phil Tomson <rubyfan@...>
Date: 2006-06-15T01:07:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?

On 6/13/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?"
>     on Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:34:43 +0900, "Phil Tomson" <rubyfan@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |>     class_extension do
> |
> |Maybe it could be called class_methods ?
>
> I thought of the name first, but I changed my mind because it is too
> similar to methods with different behavior e.g. private_methods.
> Besides that class_extension can be used for something other than
> methods, for example, constant definition.
>
> |>   Foo.im
> |
> |Do you mean Foo.cm ?
>
> Yes.  What a shame.
>
> |Is this just a more automatic/nicer way to do:
> |
> |module Moo
> |   def self.included mod
> |      mod.extend ClassMethods
> |   end
> |   module ClassMethods
> |     def cm
> |     end
> |   end
> |   def im
> |   end
> |end
> |
> |class Foo
> |  include Moo
> |end
> |
> |?
>
> Maybe.  I am not opposing to this style.
>
> |It does seem a bit more convenient.
>
> How is it more convenient?
>

I mean your proposal seems more convenient than the common idiom I showed.

Phil