> So, if I do understand correctly, basically you decided that all "functions"
> (i.e. methods you implemented in the module singleton) could go into
> instances as well.  You probably put them into the module singleton class
> because they encapsulated some algorithm that needed no instance state
> (hence "functions").

That's right. By having the methods at the instance level, I can then include or extend as the case warrents (or needs change).

> > Hmmm...That makes me wonder. Who has found a NECESSARY use for modules
> that have BOTH mixable methods AND class-level methods?
>
> All scenarios where that require a per class bookkeeping of what instances
> do, which you apparently didn't need.

Yes, that's true. And I can see that for Classes. But for Modules, their class-level methods aren't inhertable (at least not normally --one can of course use your singleton method copier). So I'm still not sure the two are every really required in the same context. One might do it just for some orginizational reason, I suppose. I.e. These  "functions" (per your definition) are useful to these mixable instance methods.

T.