From: Pit Capitain <pit@...>
Date: 2007-02-19T01:18:00+09:00
Subject: Re: More flexible inheritance

George Ogata schrieb:
> The problem to my eyes is that they're not equivalent.
> 
> The former is still required when you want to redefine an existing
> method in a class, often one you didn't write yourself.  If you change
> the former to mean the latter, does that mean we can't redefine
> methods like that?

George, I'm not Tom, but I think that for redefining a method, instead of

   class X
     def a; "a2"; end
   end

internally you would do something like

   X.ancestors[ 1 ].module_eval {
     def a; "a2"; end
   }

Everything you would do with class X in normal Ruby you would do to the 
anonymous module being the first in the ancestors chain.

Regards,
Pit