David Vallner wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:27:37 +0100, Tom Allison <tallison / tacocat.net>  
> wrote:
> 
>> David Vallner wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> However, that is only a convention, and is not enforced. Some  
>>> libraries,  like "mathn", don't define any new modules or classes, 
>>> but  instead (ab)use  the metaprogramming and reflective capacities 
>>> of Ruby  and modify existing  modules / classes by defining new 
>>> methods or  changing the behaviour of  existing ones.
>>
>>
>> This should be discouraged or at least a consistent alternative.  In 
>> any  event, if it were possible to identify methods that require more 
>> than  the stdlib or core....
>>
> 
> Good luck finding support for that. Of course, noone dabbles into this  
> sort of voodoo without his metaprogramming helmet. Banging your head  
> against the wall in frustration at stuff not working can result in 
> severe  head trauma. Ruby allows you to do this sort of magic, and do 
> it  definately more easily and cleanly than in other languages directly  
> manipulating superclass lists and property dictionaries and all such  
> foolishness. This is a very distinctive feature of Ruby, and no chance 
> in  hell it's getting nerfed or discouraged. It's runninf with scissors, 
> but  sometimes you need to cut something really quickly ;)
> 

Can't disagree with the need.
But if the person doing the running doesn't know they are carrying 
scissors......

The other issue I'm running into is that out of three people and four 
machines, I only have one that lists mathn functions in 'ri' even though 
it's supposed to be in the standard library (v1.8).  So you can imagine 
the confusion we are all having with me pulling methods out of thin air 
that no one else can even see.

I haven't been able to put together enough of a picture on the docs part 
of the issue to know where the problem lies, me, the distros (several) 
or RDocs.  It's just an observation.

I'm not giving up.  I feel I've just fallen with the scissors and 
skinned my knee.