On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:57:20 +0900, Robert Klemme <bob.news / gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> "Nicholas Van Weerdenburg" <vanweerd / gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:632154f7041213075134ba5f70 / mail.gmail.com...
> 
> 
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:32:07 +0900, Matt Mower <matt.mower / gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:12:04 +0900, Nicholas Van Weerdenburg
> > >
> > >
> > > <vanweerd / gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:20:26 +0900, Miles Keaton
> <mileskeaton / gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For example, you can extend the Enumerable modules, and your changes
> > > > apply to all objects in the system that use Enumerable:
> > > >
> > > > module Enumerable
> > > >  def each
> > > >      raise "you must implement each"
> > > >  end
> > > > end
> > > >
> > >
> > > Would this not introduce a breakage?  IIRC the search order for
> > > methods is object->modules->baseclass->baseclass modules.
> > >
> > > Hence if you mixed Enumerable into an object whose base class
> > > imlemented #each you would *hide* the base-class implementation.
> > >
> > > Or have I got it wrong?  (I'm still a learner).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matt Mower :: http://matt.blogs.it/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Good point. It was not a well thought out example.
> 
> No, not a good point.  See my other posting.
> 
> Regards
> 
>     robert
> 
> 

I misread your other posting. 

Trying in irb, I see there is no breakage.

Thanks,
Nick
-- 
Nicholas Van Weerdenburg