From: Phrogz <gavin@...>
Date: 2007-01-25T03:05:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Trickery in the ancestors chain

On Jan 24, 10:04 am, Pit Capitain <p...@capitain.de> wrote:
> Phrogz schrieb:
>
> > (...)
> > Seems like a bug, like it should only prevent the M inclusion if it's
> > already included directly in the class.
>
>But it works as documented. Why do you want to change it?

I have two, different responses:

1) OK, you're right: if it's documented that way, it's probably not a
bug. But just because it's designed, implemented, and
documented...doesn't mean that it's necessarily the correct behavior.
I'd be interested in hearing arguments for why it makes sense to
prevent a situation that can be achieved via a different call order?

2) I personally don't want to change it; I've never run into this
situation, and it seems very unlikely to me that I would ever have a
situation where this would be needed. When would you find a class that
includes a module, that has a method named the same as that class, and
need to shadow the class you're inheriting from? I was just trying to
explain to Ara the 'bug' that the OP was describing.