From: Phrogz <phrogz@...>
Date: 2007-10-16T05:15:02+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyTraits 0.1

On Oct 15, 12:54 pm, Daniel Berger <djber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 11:29 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto <m...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> > How do you think one can choose use and include?
>
> I chose the word "use" because I thought it might be inappropriate to
> redefine "include", not because I thought it needed a separate name in
> order to distinguish behavior. Note that "use ModA" with no arguments
> is the same as "include ModA".

Although this syntax reads well:
  include ModA, :exclude => :foo
I think this particular syntax appears odd:
  include ModA, :include => :foo
where this is better:
  include ModA, :include => :foo

If 'include' were to be preserved in place of 'use', perhaps instead:
  include ModA, :exclude => :foo
  include ModB, :only    => :bar  #instead of a 2nd 'include'