Issue #9696 has been updated by Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas.


 For a practical solution you might be interested on you might build a
 preprocessor that would generate the duplicate files you need which could
 be ignored by your VCS but included in your gem.
 Em 03/04/2014 00:22, <transfire / gmail.com> escreveu:
 
 > Issue #9696 has been reported by Thomas Sawyer.
 >
 > ----------------------------------------
 > Feature #9696: More Flexible Refinement Syntax
 > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9696
 >
 > * Author: Thomas Sawyer
 > * Status: Open
 > * Priority: Normal
 > * Assignee:
 > * Category: core
 > * Target version: current: 2.2.0
 > ----------------------------------------
 > I am the maintainer of Ruby Facets, the core extensions library. For the
 > next release of Facets I have long planned to provide support for
 > Refinements. Unfortunately, after working with the code to determine what
 > would be necessary to support them, I've come to the conclusion that it's
 > just not reasonable to do so. The problem lies in the fact that Facets must
 > still be backward compatible with it's "monkey-patch" usage. In fact, that
 > usage is sometimes preferable b/c you can require once and don't have to
 > write `using Foo` in every file that a core extension might be needed. But,
 > b/c of the syntax that refinements use, to support both patching and
 > refining I would have to maintain TWO COPIES of every extension, which
 > simply isn't practical.
 >
 > For example, the normal definition of a String#foo:
 >
 > ~~~
 > class String
 >   def foo
 >     ...
 >   end
 > end
 > ~~~
 >
 > And the refinement:
 >
 > ~~~
 > module Facets
 >   refine String do
 >     def foo
 >       ...
 >     end
 >   end
 > end
 > ~~~
 >
 > There does not appear to be any reasonable way to have the definition
 > defined once and still be able to be use it in either manner. (Also, I want
 > to point out that refinements do not lend themselves to cherry picking
 > specific methods per-file either.)
 >
 > So, unless someone has a clever approach that I have not thought of, I
 > wonder if it would not be a good idea to reconsider the syntax of
 > refinements. Would it be possible to simplify the definition to use `class`
 > instead of `refine`, e.g.
 >
 > ~~~
 > module Facets
 >   class String
 >     def foo
 >       ...
 >     end
 >   end
 > end
 > ~~~
 >
 > And then allow `using Facets` which would refine any common class is the
 > scope. And further, allowing also `using Facets::String` and even `using
 > Facets::String::foo` to cherry pick refinements? In addition, a way to
 > "apply" a module as if it were evaluated in the scope. This would then
 > allow the same code to be used either as a refinement or as an extension.
 >
 > Alternatively, maybe refinements should just be a require --if they will
 > forever remain at the file-level. Then no special syntax would be needed at
 > all. Simply defining them in a separate file, e.g.
 >
 > ~~~
 > # string/foo.rb
 > class String
 >   def foo
 >     ...
 >   end
 > end
 > ~~~
 >
 > And then "using" them by file name instead would do the trick.
 >
 > ~~~
 > using 'string/foo'
 > ~~~
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > --
 > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
 >

----------------------------------------
Feature #9696: More Flexible Refinement Syntax
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9696#change-46056

* Author: Thomas Sawyer
* Status: Rejected
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Category: core
* Target version: current: 2.2.0
----------------------------------------
I am the maintainer of Ruby Facets, the core extensions library. For the next release of Facets I have long planned to provide support for Refinements. Unfortunately, after working with the code to determine what would be necessary to support them, I've come to the conclusion that it's just not reasonable to do so. The problem lies in the fact that Facets must still be backward compatible with it's "monkey-patch" usage. In fact, that usage is sometimes preferable b/c you can require once and don't have to write `using Foo` in every file that a core extension might be needed. But, b/c of the syntax that refinements use, to support both patching and refining I would have to maintain TWO COPIES of every extension, which simply isn't practical.

For example, the normal definition of a String#foo:

~~~
class String
  def foo
    ...
  end
end
~~~

And the refinement:

~~~
module Facets
  refine String do
    def foo
      ...
    end
  end
end
~~~

There does not appear to be any reasonable way to have the definition defined once and still be able to be use it in either manner. (Also, I want to point out that refinements do not lend themselves to cherry picking specific methods per-file either.)

So, unless someone has a clever approach that I have not thought of, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to reconsider the syntax of refinements. Would it be possible to simplify the definition to use `class` instead of `refine`, e.g.

~~~
module Facets
  class String
    def foo
      ...
    end
  end
end
~~~

And then allow `using Facets` which would refine any common class is the scope. And further, allowing also `using Facets::String` and even `using Facets::String::foo` to cherry pick refinements? In addition, a way to "apply" a module as if it were evaluated in the scope. This would then allow the same code to be used either as a refinement or as an extension.

Alternatively, maybe refinements should just be a require --if they will forever remain at the file-level. Then no special syntax would be needed at all. Simply defining them in a separate file, e.g.

~~~
# string/foo.rb
class String
  def foo
    ...
  end
end
~~~

And then "using" them by file name instead would do the trick.

~~~
using 'string/foo'
~~~





-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/