From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2010-04-30T22:45:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Switching dynamically between methods (inside modules)

2010/4/30 Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Robert Klemme
> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 2010/4/30 Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com>:
>>> To me, this problem cries out for delegation rather than inheritance
>>> or module inclusion.
>>
>> Absolutely!
> Ok can you kinda stop of spoiling the fun ;).

How can I stop you from having fun?  It's a free world and you can do
whatever pleases you.

> I really did not analyze the use case. Delegation is often forgotten
> and often could be used instead of inheritance with beneficial
> effects.

Exactly Rick's and my point.

> However, traits are behavior based on, well traits and *not* inheritance.
> I believe that traits are not really used anywhere in the spirit of
> the "original". If I am mistaken that would be a joyful surprise. And
> it would allow us to better study traits vs. x. In our case x being
> delegation.

I would look a bit further into this if I had enough time right now.
I have to admit I don't really have a firm grip on traits so I would
have to do some research upfront to be able to properly comment on
that matter.

> The question I would like to see answered is: Is it really the
> responsibility of a delegate to do the work? Look at where the data
> lives. In our case delegation is wonderful as there is an almost
> perfect decoupling of the language data. When the delegate needs many
> features of the delegator(sp?) however, traits become a really good
> alternative.
> And sorry for the advertising ;)

No sweat.

Kind regards

robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/