From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2002-11-09T03:52:43+09:00
Subject: Re: understanding modules/classes

On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 03:33:40 +0900, Eric Schwartz wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <austin@halostatue.ca> writes:
>> It does matter where you put it, to a degree. "include" simply
>> includes the methods and classes from a module into the current
>> object scope. The "standard" object scope is (more or less) the
>> Object object.
>> 
>> Thus, when I do:
>> 
>> include MIME::Types
>> 
>> Then I have made it so that I can call the MIME::Types functions
>> without any specifiers (although it may not be a good idea to do
>> so).
> Okay, I'm still confused. I get the feeling that I just walked
> right past the point without even noticing it. You seem to be
> talking about Modules as if they're just collections of functions.
> I see them as a way of implementing namespaces for Ruby objects,
> which I see as necessary.

It's both. 'include' effectively removes the namespace. See my most
recent response to you on this. It works with classes, other
modules, and functions, too.

> Otherwise, as I understand it, if I defined a TestTableModel
> class, and you do too, you will silently extend mine, instead of
> creating an entirely new class (or better yet, warning you of the
> problem and falling over and dying). Whereas if I hide them inside
> a TestHarness Module, you'd have to explicitly "include" it to get
> that problem, and at least at that point you can be presumed to
> know what you're doing.

This is correct, and that's why you want to leave it up to the user
to do the include where they want to do it.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.11.08 at 13.50.53