From: Bernhard Weitzhofer <weitzhof@...>
Date: 2003-05-14T19:40:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Scope of modules and classes

Hi

dblack@superlink.net wrote:

>>Is there a better way, should I stick to the "M::"s, or is it just bad
>>design that I am doing here?
> 
> Looking at the design aspect of it, you could put M2 inside M (since
> it seems to want to be there :-) if it makes sense in the larger
> picture.
> 
>   module M
>     class K1
>     end
> 
>     class K2
>       def initialize
> 	puts "Initializing a #{self.class}!"
>       end
>     end
> 
>     module M2
>       class K3 < K1
> 	def initialize
> 	  @a = K2.new
> 	end
>       end
>     end
>   end
> 
>   include M
>   M2::K3.new

The original idea was to build a toolkit (module M). Module M2 should 
have only used this toolkit rather than being part of it.

But after some reconsideration, I think it would have been a little 
paradox to encapsulate the classes of module M just to virtually give 
this encapsulation away again by making them accessible from outside 
(from module M2) -- so I think I will implement the scheme you suggested 
and consider module M2 a "plugin" for toolkit M ...

thanks for your help,

Bernhard Weitzhofer