On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Florian Gro? wrote:
> Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> > Btw, do you think it's right that foo.extend(bar) is any different from
> > class<<foo;extend bar end ?... and don't you have the feeling that extend
> > should be called something else, as well as that something else should be
> > called extend ? Either that or the same about include... I don't feel like
> > the difference (and similarities) between behaviour of "extend" and
> > "include" is reflected in their naming...
> Hm, did you mean extend() vs. class << obj; include(); end? I think (or 
> expect) those behave the same, but I might be wrong.

WOOPS, yes, I did mean that. Well, the only difference is that they use
different hooks for notifying the right-hand module... so whenever I
define one hook for something that may be used in one way or the other, I
have to define both hooks. Not something that much cumbersome, but it's
still on the wart-list.

> Regarding the naming not making the semantic difference obvious: I
> think that's true, though it would be hard to come up with short names
> that do it better. I think I'm already used to it anyway...

same here...

cheers

_____________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard -=- Montr?al QC Canada -=- http://artengine.ca/matju