From: Rob Sanheim <rsanheim@...>
Date: 2006-10-06T13:38:53+09:00
Subject: Re: append_features vs include

On 10/5/06, Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 10:06:12AM +0900, Rob Sanheim wrote:
> > I've read somewhere that Module#append_features is the old name for
> > this method, and "included" should be used going forward.  Makes sense
> > to me, as "included" is shorter and fits the method better, anyways.
> >
> > So is "append_features" going to be removed at some point, maybe 2.0?
> > I don't see it as really buying us anything, as its not a "humane"
> > alias like length vs size are for Array.
> >
> It's not an alias at all. (Hence why using append_features is that much
> more work than included) It's the method that does the actual appeneding
> of the features of the modules into the class or module that it gets
> included into. It is in other words, an implementation detail. included
> on the other hand is a callback that gets called after all this nitty
> gritty detail stuff is finished, for the express purpose of allowing
> custom code to be hooked into the inclusion process.

Okay, where I said "included" in the above post I meant "include".
Sorry about that.

And now that I look at the rdoc, it looks like the only difference is
that include allows multiple arguments, whereas append_features takes
one arg only.

So I guess the question I really want to ask is this: why not just
have include fold append_features in to it?

- Rob
-- 
http://www.robsanheim.com
http://www.seekingalpha.com
http://www.ajaxian.com