From: Simon Strandgaard <neoneye@...>
Date: 2004-03-08T10:14:39+09:00
Subject: Re: proposal:  class<<obj to invoke extend_object

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:59:50 -0500, Kent S. wrote:
> David A. Black wrote:
>>>I had the impression that they didn't differ much.
>>>Is there anyone which can explain this to me?
>> 
>> 
>> When you do "obj.extend(Mod)", obj.ancestors changes (new module
>> added).
>> 
> 
> To be precise, class << obj; self end.ancestors changes :-)
> 

Thanks David and Kent,  now I understand. it seems logical that the
ancestors change when doing 'obj.extend',  and doesn't when doing
'class<<obj'.



Still... I propose that 'class<<self' should invoke #extended or some sort
of suitable replacement, so that initialization can take place.
What do you think ?

Should it be named #extended ?  or  have another name?




ATT: David A Black
> (Testing a new way of posting to Usenet.... hoping it works....)
> (Copy to Simon)
>

Your message didn't show up in the newsgroup... But the posting which I am
replying to now gave me a hint, so I checked on ruby-talk, and saw your
message there.

--
Simon Strandgaard