From: Christoph Date: 2002-09-15T01:25:41+09:00 Subject: Re: Larry Wall's comments on Ruby "Gavin Sinclair" wrote in message news:038401c25b30$0bb7ade0$c32386cb@nosedog... > I suppose that most math calculations would be isolated to a couple of classes. > These could all "include Math", thus simplifying the call. > > Is this good style? Is it the Ruby way? Is there any performance hit by Well it is very reasonable (I personally I try to avoid this as much as possible, probably without good reason) You will eventually get some performance degradation if the including module contains a looot of (private) instance_methods ... > including the same module in two classes? - there is almost none I believe ... > > BTW my question remains unanswered. Christoph mentioned namespaces as if they > were different from modules, and I don't know what he was talking about. Yes they would be different (Ruby does not have them yet?) - for one thing you cannot uninclude modules - something I definitely would expect from namespaces. Anyway I am a bit lost what Ruby namespace are supposed to be in detail - Matz himself was talking them without providing the latter, leaving plenty of room for useful(less?) speculations. Keiju Ishitsuka's ``scope_in_state'' pure Ruby extension fills this gap but I am not sure if this module matches Matz expectations (nor mine;-) . /Christoph