Robert Klemme
9/13/2007 8:59:00 AM
2007/9/12, Trans <transfire@gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Sep 11, 1:55 am, "Robert Klemme" <shortcut...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'd generally prefer to define modules explicitly and extend classes
> > with them as Ara suggested. IMHO that's a cleaner way to achieve what
> > you want and it also documents things more nicely (especially you can
> > look at inheritance etc.). My 0.02EUR
>
> That is simply not correct. Fist of all, you do not control all code,
> so you can not make someone else modularized their module's class-
> level methods, so you can later augment them with meta-code.
I'm not sure. If they are not modularized I probably would not want
to reuse them.
> Secondly,
> the primary point has nothing to do with the fact that one can manage
> workarounds, of course there are ways, but b/c of limitations they are
> fragile and inefficient.
I don' t think inheriting (as show in my first reply) is fragile or
inefficient but I may of course get in the way with other inheritance
you'd want to do.
> Lastly, you are missing the point when you
> you say, "prefer to define modules explicitly... that's a cleaner way
> to achieve what you want". That's not the issue. Again, I encourage
> you to have a look as Facets' inheritor.rb lib to get a better
> understanding of this.
Um, you got me stumped here: in your original post you advertised
easier reuse of singleton methods by making the singleton class a
singleton module instead. Where exactly am I missing the point?
Kind regards
robert