In message "Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?"
    on Sun, 11 Jun 2006 23:59:17 +0900, transfire / gmail.com writes:

|> I like the solution that Daniel has shown in [ruby-talk:196730].
|
|He he. That's ironic. Yes, Daniels solution is the right direction for
|the best meta-programming approach, but it still has some problems (as
|I pointed out in my last post).

Which is your "last post"?  Is it [ruby-talk:196751]?
If so, I agree with Daniel's reply in [ruby-talk:196770].

I have to mention I am not a big fan of the name "class_methods"
though.

|On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if a module's "class-level"
|were instead a "module-level", --a module instead of a class. Or at
|least if those methods were delegated to an extending module but
|transaprently, underthehood. Then this might actually make sense:

It may make sense from some aspect, but not from others.  Language
design is the very complicated task. ;-)  In this case, it introduces
full multiple inheritance, which I avoided for years.

							matz.