> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Weirich [mailto:jim.weirich / gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:53 PM
> To: ruby-core / ruby-lang.org
> Subject: [ruby-core:22448] Re: YASNP (Yet Another Selector Namespace
> Proposal)
>=20
>=20
> On Feb 24, 2009, at 11:29 PM, Jim Deville wrote:
>=20
> > As an example, what if I am using Merb, and two plugins, which all
> > define a namespaced method, which I want to change. That's three
> > namespaces that I have to __know about__ and modify. As opposed to
> > one now.
>=20
> I must admit, I'm a little confused by the above.  Maybe we have
> different understandings about what selector namespaces are and what
> they do.
>=20
> If three plugins each define a method named "xyz" in different
> modules, you have three different methods in three modules.  Adding
> namespaces doesn't change that.  All the namespace does is allow
> programmers to say "Over this section of code, calling a method named
> 'xyz' will come from this module rather than that module."
>=20
> Could some elaborate about their fears of name spaces creating
> fences.  I don't quite understand what they are getting at.
>=20
> Thanks.
>=20
> --
> -- Jim Weirich
> -- jim.weirich / gmail.com
>=20
>=20

Clarification of my example: If three namespaces define xyz, and you want a=
ll of the xyz's to act differently, then you need to modify three namespace=
s with monkeypatching. This way you change their effects wherever you use t=
hem.

Rebuttal of my example: As pointed out by Charlie here and offlist, the pro=
per way to handle this conflict of namespaces is to create your own namespa=
ce that does what you want.

Overall, the example wasn't my major point, my point was in asking the same=
 community that is lively about this discussion, and very creative (just se=
e the Ruby projects in existence), to come up with ways that this can be mi=
sused. Throw them out there so we can see if there is a large downside. I d=
on't know if there is. This example wasn't meant to prove it wrong, just to=
 give an idea.=20

I guess this kind of falls under bikeshedding, but I think that it is valid=
 to partake in some of this kind of brainstorming before this, or any, prop=
osal is accepted.

JD