From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2002-04-01T21:08:53+09:00
Subject: Re: re-extending object

>>>>> "E" == Ed Sinjiashvili <edsin@swes.saren.ru> writes:

E> Thanx for the snippet, I used similar scheme, but without automated
E> #method_missing dispath. Still my question was - Could I use *Module*
E> mixins to implement that pattern? 

 When you call #include or #extend, ruby first check if the module exist in
 the ancestors. If it's found it don't try to include it

	/* ignore if the module included already in superclasses */

>> In your case a *STUPID* implementation
E> Is it stupid to expect that mixin will override methods that already
E> present in the object? Or is it stupid to use #extend - 'cause it can
E> be used more than once per mixin?

 No, *MY* implementation (given in the previous message) of a State pattern
 is stupid :-))) 


Guy Decoux