From: cldwalker <gabriel.horner@...>
Date: 2009-05-15T07:05:08+09:00
Subject: Re: how do you create a large number of irb commands?

On May 13, 11:49 am, cldwalker <gabriel.hor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 11:07 am, ghorner <gabriel.hor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm wondering what you all consider the best way for creating a large
> > number of irb commands. By commands I'm referring to methods for the
> > default irb object like irb,fg and jobs. Here are some of the
> > different ways that come to mind:
>
> > * Extend the default irb object with modules.
> > * Include modules into the default irb object. However this has the
> > nasty side effect of making those methods accessible to all objects.
> > * Just define methods in the default irb object. Simple and seems to
> > be the common way in irbrc's.
> > * Use irb's internal command system i.e. self.def_extend_command() inhttp://github.com/rubyspec/matzruby/blob/9ca4e66f27e2563512afdd4c70af...
> > Seems like overkill.
>
> > To me the only serious options are extending or just defining the
> > method. By extending I get an ancestry trace on where commands came
> > from which is important when dealing with a large number of commands.
> > Also, if i do switch subsessions or workspaces I can just extend in
> > needed functionality. Since defining methods in the irb object lacks
> > the ancestry trace and the ability to reuse them in other context, my
> > vote is for extending.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> > Gabriel
>
> I forgot to mention the option of commands as private methods in
> Kernel space. Like the include option, I think it's too dirty as it
> gives all objects access to those methods through send(). Although
> this doesn't matter for a couple of commands, it could lead to some
> dangerous side effects for many commands. My vote is still with
> extending modules.
>
> Gabriel

So I guess *no one* creates commands in irb?