[#8566] Visions for 2001/1.7.x development? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi matz and other Ruby developers,

18 messages 2001/01/03
[#8645] Re: Visions for 2001/1.7.x development? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/01/04

Hi,

[#8580] bug?? — jmichel@... (Jean Michel)

I don't understand the following behaviour:

19 messages 2001/01/03

[#8633] Interesting Language performance comparisons - Ruby, OCAML etc — "g forever" <g24ever@...>

13 messages 2001/01/04

[#8774] No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...>

So, why not include Comparable in Array by default? It shouldn't have any

28 messages 2001/01/07
[#8779] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/01/07

Hi,

[#8780] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2001/01/07

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:

[#8781] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 2001/01/07

In message "[ruby-talk:8780] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array"

[#8782] Re: No :<, :>, etc. methods for Array — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...> 2001/01/07

gotoken@math.sci.hokudai.ac.jp (GOTO Kentaro) wrote:

[#8829] Sandbox (again) — wys@... (Clemens Wyss)

Hi,

20 messages 2001/01/08
[#8864] Re: Sandbox (again) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 2001/01/08

On 8 Jan, Clemens Wyss wrote:

[#8931] String confusion — Anders Bengtsson <ndrsbngtssn@...>

Hello everyone,

21 messages 2001/01/09
[#8937] Re: String confusion — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/01/09

Hi,

[#8953] Please remove account from files — "Thomas Daniels" <westernporter@...>

Please take my e-mail address from your files and "CANCEL" my subscription to "Ruby-Talk". Ruby is not right for what I do. The "Bulk Mail" is overwhelming. Please, no more e-mail! Thank you! yours truly, Stan Daniels

14 messages 2001/01/09
[#8983] Re: Please remove account from files — John Rubinubi <rubinubi@...> 2001/01/10

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Thomas Daniels wrote:

[#9020] time to divide -talk? (was: Please remove account from files) — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2001/01/10

At Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:23:30 +0900,

[#9047] Re: time to divide -talk? (was: Please remov e account from files) — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

Yasushi Shoji:

27 messages 2001/01/10
[#9049] Re: time to divide -talk? — Yasushi Shoji <yashi@...> 2001/01/10

At Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:20:45 +0900,

[#9153] what about this begin? — Anders Strandl Elkj誡 <ase@...> 2001/01/11

[#9195] Re: Redefining singleton methods — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "H" == Horst Duch=EAne?= <iso-8859-1> writes:

10 messages 2001/01/12

[#9242] polymorphism — Maurice Szmurlo <maurice@...>

hello

73 messages 2001/01/13

[#9279] Can ruby replace php? — Jim Freeze <jim@...>

When I read that ruby could be used to replace PHP I got really

15 messages 2001/01/14

[#9411] The Ruby Way — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneiker@...>

As a member of the "Big 8" newsgroups, "The Ruby Way" (of posting) is to

15 messages 2001/01/17

[#9462] Re: reading an entire file as a string — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "R" == Raja S <raja@cs.indiana.edu> writes:

35 messages 2001/01/17
[#9465] Re: reading an entire file as a string — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2001/01/17

raja@cs.indiana.edu (Raja S.) writes:

[#9521] Larry Wall INterview — ianm74@...

Larry was interviewed at the Perl/Ruby conference in Koyoto:

20 messages 2001/01/18
[#10583] Re: Larry Wall INterview — "greg strockbine" <gstrock@...> 2001/02/08

Larry Wall's interview is how I found out

[#9610] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages — "Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly@...>

"Christian" <christians@syd.microforte.com.au> wrote:

13 messages 2001/01/20

[#9761] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "C" == Christoph Rippel <crippel@primenet.com> writes:

16 messages 2001/01/23

[#9792] Ruby 162 installer available — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

15 messages 2001/01/24

[#9958] Re: Vim syntax files again. — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Hugh Sasse wrote:

14 messages 2001/01/26
[#10065] Re: Vim syntax files again. — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...> 2001/01/29

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Conrad Schneiker wrote:

[#9975] line continuation — "David Ruby" <ruby_david@...>

can a ruby statement break into multiple lines?

18 messages 2001/01/27
[#9976] Re: line continuation — Michael Neumann <neumann@...> 2001/01/27

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, David Ruby wrote:

[#9988] Re: line continuation — harryo@... (Harry Ohlsen) 2001/01/28

>A statement break into mutliple lines if it is not complete,

[ruby-talk:9030] Re: Modules and mixins

From: "Christoph Rippel" <crippel@...>
Date: 2001-01-10 12:45:40 UTC
List: ruby-talk #9030
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dave@thomases.com [mailto:dave@thomases.com]On Behalf Of Dave
...
> Just to back up what Kevin says: Mixins are also not just passive.
> They can alter the class that includes them (which is half way to
> Aspect Oriented Programming). For example, the Singleton mixin

I agree with you that Ruby facilitates AOP techniques (note that
I have a faintes clue what AOP programming is about) but the
Singleton module is a bit of a cheat. The author overrode the 
usual behavior of #append_features (this method is called when
the ruby interpreter sees ``include OtherModule'') and did not
even bother to call super.append_features - the net effect:

require 'singleton'
class A
include Singleton
end
p A.ancestors # no Singleton module in sight

Even worse when you try to include the module Singleton into 
another module  (something you can do with a normal module) and 
not a class (a special kind of module) the interpreter rightfully
complains. It would have been conceptually more honest to add a 
make_singleton method to the Class (note the capitalization) 
interface or define this - appropriately - as a singleton method
of Singleton - to be called along the lines of 

class A
Singleton.follow_me(A) # just kidding
end

Seriously, if someone wants to write a AOP package please think
twice before overriding  #append_features - if it does not make
sense for modules don't do it. And since I am at it - are there
any plans to deal with the circular mix-in (which will probably 
bite gulp at some point) problem?


module L1
end
module L2
end
module L3
end
module L4
end
module L5
end

module L4 
include L3 
include L1
include L2
end

module L3
include L4
include L1
include L4
include L5
end

module L2
include L1
include L4
include L3
end

module L1
include L2
include L4
include L5
end

module L3
include L2
end

module L1
include L3
end

module L5
include L3
include L1
include L2
end

module L2
include L5
end

module L4 
include L5
end

module L5
include L4
end


# and now the grand finale
p  L1.ancestors
p  L2.ancestors
p  L3.ancestors
p  L4.ancestors
p  L5.ancestors


Christoph
 

In This Thread