From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2008-05-17T07:44:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Monkey Patching (definition)?

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Christoph Schiessl <c.schiessl@gmx.net> wrote:
> For example. Look the following piece of simple Ruby Code:
>
> class ExampleClass
>  def some_instance_method
>    'Called some_instace_method!'
>  end
> end
>
> def ExampleClass.i_am_a_class_method
>  'Called i_am_a_class_method!'
> end
>
> inst = ExampleClass.new
> def inst.i_am_an_instance_method
>  'Called i_am_an_instance_method'
> end
>
> Basically, I am reopening the definition of ExampleClass and adding another
> method. At first I am creating a new class method and afterwards I am
> creating a new instance method (for the object inst only). Is monkey
> patching the correct term for that kind of programming style?

Actually, this code never reopens the definition of ExampleClass.

def ExampleClass.i_am_a_class_method
end

Doesn't reopen example class, it defines a method on the singleton
class (a.k.a metaclass) of the object bound to the global name
ExampleClass, which just happens to be a class, it doesn't really do
anything to the ExampleClassObject.

inst = ExampleClass.new
def inst.i_am_an_instance_method
end

Likewise doesn't touch the ExampleClass object at all either.  It adds
a method to the singleton class of the object bound to the variable
inst.

I've skimmed the earlier responses and I don't think anyone else
pointed this out.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/