From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2011-12-27T00:01:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Mixin for Mixins

------=_Part_432_25737030.1324911665054
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_433_6956989.1324911665054"

------=_Part_433_6956989.1324911665054
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



On Monday, December 26, 2011 2:33:02 AM UTC-5, Josh Cheek wrote:
>
> Why do you invoke the included method by including the Extension into
> Facets::String? I see this all over the place (esp in Rails) but don't get
> why. It's just an ultra fancy way to invoke a method, but it pollutes
> String's ancestry and makes it nonobvious what's happening. This code
> doesn't also extend in the included hook, but I see that a lot, too (e.g.
>
> https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activerecord/lib/active_record/model.rb#L17
> ).
>

Fair point. You might want to pollute String with the CoreExtension mixin. 
OTOH, it makes it easy to identify that it was extended as such, e.g.

  String.ancestors
  => [String, CoreExtension, Comparable, Kernel, BasicObject]

And since there are no instance methods in it I don't think it hurts 
anything.
 

> How about something like this as an alternative:
>
Actually, if we used #append_features instead of #include, we could prevent 
the inclusion, but still use `include` to apply the extended features,


------=_Part_433_6956989.1324911665054
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Monday, December 26, 2011 2:33:02 AM UTC-5, Josh Cheek wrote:<bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border=
-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><p>Why do you invoke the included=
 method by including the Extension into<br>Facets::String? I see this all o=
ver the place (esp in Rails) but don't get<br>why. It's just an ultra fancy=
 way to invoke a method, but it pollutes<br>String's ancestry and makes it =
nonobvious what's happening. This code<br>doesn't also extend in the includ=
ed hook, but I see that a lot, too (e.g.<br><a href=3D"https://github.com/r=
ails/rails/blob/master/activerecord/lib/active_record/model.rb#L17" target=
=3D"_blank">https://github.com/rails/<wbr>rails/blob/master/<wbr>activereco=
rd/lib/active_<wbr>record/model.rb#L17</a><br>).</p></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>Fair point. You might want to pollute String with the CoreExtensi=
on mixin. OTOH, it makes it easy to identify that it was extended as such, =
e.g.</div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp; String.ancestors<br></div><div><div>&n=
bsp; =3D&gt; [String, CoreExtension, Comparable, Kernel, BasicObject]</div>=
</div><div><br></div><div>And since there are no instance methods in it I d=
on't think it hurts anything.<br></div><div>&nbsp;<br></div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bott=
om: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb=
(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "><p style=3D=
"border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">How about something like t=
his as an alternative:</p></blockquote><div>Actually, if we used #append_fe=
atures instead of #include, we could prevent the inclusion, but still use `=
include` to apply the extended features,</div><div><br></div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px =
#ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p=
></p><p></p><p></p><p></p></blockquote>
------=_Part_433_6956989.1324911665054--

------=_Part_432_25737030.1324911665054--