From: Carlos <angus@...>
Date: 2006-06-16T20:02:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?"
>     on Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:56:23 +0900, dblack@wobblini.net writes:
> 
> |>  class C
> |>    include M
> |>  end
> |>  M.a = 42
> |>  p M.a # => 42
> |
> |Will this happen if the module is included in another module?  If so,
> |I'm wondering whether a more generic name, without "class" in it,
> |could be used instead of "class_extension".
> 
> That's where I am wondering.  Using the Daniel's code:
> 
>   module M
>     class_extension do
>       def foo
>       end
>     end
>   end
>   module M2
>     include M
>   end
>   class C
>     include M2
>   end
> 
>   M.foo   # => NoMethodError
>   M2.foo  # => Error? (should it affect modules?)

I'd say yes.

>   C.foo   # => Error? (should class_extension be propagated?)

I'd say no, but maybe there should be another function to import it.

   module M
     class_extension do
       def foo
       end
     end
   end
   module M2
     include_class_extension M
   end
   module M3
     include M2
   end

   M.foo  #=> error
   M2.foo #=> error
   M3.foo #=> no error

> If 'class_extension' affects modules as well, do you think of any
> more generic name, in place of "class" extension?

module_extension, included_module_features, define_module_features, ...?
--