From: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@...>
Date: 2006-06-15T06:33:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?

ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> can someone point out to me what's wrong with this impl?  it's simple, 
> works
> in a recursive way, is self documenting, is already used, and is 34 lines
> long.  as far as i can tell it already does every required and it very 
> simple
> and robust.

I can of course only speak for myself, but I'm not fond of the idea of 
reserving constant names when it's really not needed -- "class 
extension", as it seemingly has come to be named, should be handled 
internally, within the module that defines such an extension. Even if 
the ClassMethods and InstanceMethods modules are private, they would 
still clutter the namespace. By using anonymous modules in instance 
variables you avoid collisions (not completely of course.)

Furthermore, I feel that it's redundant to have an entire "child" module 
for the instance methods.

Not that the implementation is bad at all; I just don't think it's 
streamlined enough to make it to the core, although that obviously isn't 
my call to make.


Cheers,
Daniel