From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2009-12-12T03:51:05+09:00
Subject: Re: "private" modules



On Dec 11, 9:09 am, Matt Bleh <phreakuenc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Masover wrote:
> > Hmm... I'm not sure that's a good idea. Besides, the anonymous module
> > seems
> > like overkill. Maybe people will like your Vector class?
>
> Well the whole point is to provide a better implementation for Vector,
> and at the same time spare users from having to prefix with "A" every
> reference to Vector.
>
> The B module is actually going to be used by many classes under A, so I
> can't just put it inside Vector.

If B is a support module only used by A, then you might use an extra
submodule, you could even name it the same as the first:

  module A

    class Vector
       ...
       A::B::c_library_func(p)
       ...
    end

    module A

      module B
        ...
      end

    end

  end