From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-03-22T08:48:17+09:00
Subject: Re: [rcr] rename append_features -> include_object

Hi --

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In message "[rcr] rename append_features -> include_object"
>     on 04/03/22, Simon Strandgaard <neoneye@adslhome.dk> writes:
> 
> |There is a saying: avoid asymmetry
> |
> |we have
> |extended       <->   included
> |extend_object  <->   "append_features"
> |
> |symmetry would be nice in ruby2
> 
> But append_features does "append features" to the class/module.  The
> name "include_object" is quite misleading.
> 
> I'd rather remove extend_object and append_features, which is older
> than included/extended hooks.

Actually included/extended is a little misleading too.  You would say:

  A module gets included in (or by) another module.

so Module#included makes sense.  But you would not say:

  A module gets extended in (or by) another module.

Rather, from the module's point of view, it's more like:

  A module serves to extend an object.

Module#extended sounds like the Module object itself is being extended
(by another module).

In this case, I don't think the language should be symmetrical,
because the two actions are not.  I would be inclined toward something
more like:

  Module#included      # passive, included *by* another object
  Module#extending     # active, extending another object


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net