2008/3/18, Trans <transfire / gmail.com>:
>
>  On Mar 18, 12:59 pm, "Sean O'Halpin" <sean.ohal... / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > True enough. As I said, I'm only surmising what Trans is after. I'm
>  > not criticising your response to the concrete example (after all,
>  > it is both pragmatic and to the point). Rather, I'm taking the
>  > question Trans posed as an opportunity to discuss what I consider best
>  > practice in the more general case.
>
> I'd like to present another example --a simpler one in a sense, of
>  direct extension vs. using modules. I will leave out most the code for
>  brevity sakes but consider, but here is an example where I took code
>  that was straight core extensions and "modulized" it:
>
>   # -- random.rb

<snip>100+ lines</snip>

Did you say "brevity"? LOL

>  Other Ruby coder's might look at this and think, "clever". I look at
>  it and think, "obfuscated". First off there is Kernel, b/c of the
>  double module inclusion problem it can't participate in the whole
>  "clever" affair. Then there is Self and the included callback hack to
>  get the class-level methods in there. And on top of it all, there is
>  the simple fact that I had to create and include a bunch of new
>  modules and all the overhead that comes with them -- when all I want
>  to do add a few methods to the core classes/modules. To throw in a
>  little irony as well, the main reason I even bothered to do this, was
>  not to help avoid method clash (a fairly unavoidable problem really),
>  but to get better results for RDoc --and that fact really makes me
>  sick.

Indeed.  It sounds rather RDoc should be fixed instead of code tweaked
to get desired results.

Kind regards

robert

-- 
use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end