From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-09-13T04:06:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Finer-grained modules (like Enumarable) for Collections?

On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 02:17:54AM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > There were some very useful ideas in this re-factoring. e.g.
> >
> > module TEmptiness
> >    #requires "size"
> >    def isEmpty () ...
> >    def notEmpty () ...
> >    def ifEmpty (&block)
> >    def ifNotEmpty (&block)
> >     etc.
> > end
> 
> Interesting approach.  I like these kind of things because they increase
> modularity and improve reusability though I can't comment on efficiency
> issues with Ruby in this case.  (We'd get lot's of modules that are
> included in Enumerable which in turn is included in std collection types.)

This can be leveraged to ease Ruby-in-Ruby or to reimplement the
interpreter: see matju's MetaRuby.


-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

* LG loves czech girls.
<vincent> LG: do they have additional interesting "features" other girls don't have? ;)
	-- #Debian