From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2012-04-20T12:53:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Why must I know whether I extend a class or a module?

------=_Part_879_12853699.1334894011040
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_880_8700421.1334894011040"

------=_Part_880_8700421.1334894011040
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:18:05 PM UTC-4, Bartosz Dziewo=C5=84ski wrote=
:
>
> I disagree. You are not supposed to instantiate modules; you do are
> supposed to instantiate classes. Even if the difference between the
> two is small in your code or in Ruby source, the conceptual gap is
> huge.
>
> No, not really. You just summed it up in one sentence. So instantiate it=
=20
as needs be, and don't when you don't. It is how you use it.

The forced distinction only serves to take that flexibility away from the=
=20
programmer.

There are other benefits too in that removing the distinction would allow=
=20
auto instantiation, e.g.

    class Foo::Bar
    end

Would work just fine, even though no `Foo` has been defined separately.=20
This can be especially nice when requiring sub-files.


------=_Part_880_8700421.1334894011040
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:18:05 PM UTC-4, Bartosz Dziewo=C5=84ski wrote=
:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;bo=
rder-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><p>I disagree. You are not su=
pposed to instantiate modules; you do are<br>supposed to instantiate classe=
s. Even if the difference between the<br>two is small in your code or in Ru=
by source, the conceptual gap is<br>huge.</p><p></p></blockquote><div>No, n=
ot really. You just summed it up in one sentence. So instantiate it as need=
s be, and don't when you don't. It is how you use it.</div><div><br></div><=
div>The forced distinction only serves to take that flexibility away from t=
he programmer.</div><div><br></div><div>There are other benefits too in tha=
t removing the distinction would allow auto instantiation, e.g.</div><div><=
br></div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; class Foo::Bar</div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; end</div=
><div><br></div><div>Would work just fine, even though no `Foo` has been de=
fined separately. This can be especially nice when requiring sub-files.</di=
v><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margi=
n-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><p></p><p></p=
><p></p></blockquote>
------=_Part_880_8700421.1334894011040--

------=_Part_879_12853699.1334894011040--