From: Pit Capitain <pit@...>
Date: 2007-01-25T17:40:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Trickery in the ancestors chain

Phrogz schrieb:
> On Jan 24, 10:04 am, Pit Capitain <p...@capitain.de> wrote:
>> 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.

Absolutely. That's why I asked for reasons to change it.

> 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?

Yes, maybe the bug is here:

>>  D.ancestors    # => [D, M, C, M, Object, Kernel]

But from what I know of the Ruby interpreter, this would be hard to fix.

Regards,
Pit