From: Eric Schwartz <emschwar@...>
Date: 2002-11-12T05:06:46+09:00
Subject: Re: [FAQ] Why use 'include'

ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> writes:
> >>>>> "A" == Austin Ziegler <austin@halostatue.ca> writes:
> 
> A> Well, A.new is still an M::A, but it's just been made part of the
> A> object's current lexical scope. At least that's how I interpret the
> A> statement.
> 
>  Well, my example was for this :
> 
> E> forms. If you do it at the top of a file, everything in that
> E> file can use the short forms.

Yes, but you've effectively done it at the top of every file that
'require's c.rb, by putting the 'include' at the end of that file.

>  Strange but for me 
> 
>         "the most restrictive lexical scope available"
> 
>  make me think to a P language :-(((

I should have said "the most restrictive namespace available", but I'm
not too clear on how Ruby's concept of namespaces maps to mine.

-=Eric
-- 
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
		-- Blair Houghton