before one can include a module into a program, one must first have said
module available...  so in this case, you should:

##
require 'SimpleMod'
include MyMod      # to bring all of MyMod's methods into the current object
##

hex

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:25 PM, RichardOnRails <
RichardDummyMailbox58407 / uscomputergurus.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I posted my simple module and test file at http://www.pastie.org/2025300.
> When I run my test under SciTE 1.74 with WinXP-Pro/SP3, I get the
> results shown below.  In short,  I fail trying to include the module
> using the name of the module or the name of the file hosting the
> module.
>
> Any correction to my misunderstanding would be most appreciated.
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Richard
>
> >ruby TestMyMod.rb
> RUBY_VERSION = 1.9.2
> RUBYLIB = K:\_Projects\Ruby\_Ruby__KeyModules
>
> Attempt to load MyMod
> ==========
> uninitialized constant Object::MyMod
> ==========
>
> Attempt to load SimpleMod
> ==========
> uninitialized constant Object::SimpleMod
> ==========
>
> List MyMod container, SimpleMod.rb
> Path = K:\_Projects\Ruby\_Ruby__KeyModules\SimpleMod.rb
> # SimpleMod.rb
> # K:\_Projects\Ruby\_Ruby__KeyModules
>
> module MyMod
>  def say_hello
>    puts "Hello from say_hello in MyMod"
>  end
> end
>
> >Exit code: 0
>
>
-- 

> > Other than the fact Linux has a cool name, could someone explain why I
> > should use Linux over BSD?
>
> No.  That's it.  The cool name, that is.  We worked very hard on
> creating a name that would appeal to the majority of people, and it
> certainly paid off: thousands of people are using linux just to be able
> to say "OS/2? Hah.  I've got Linux.  What a cool name".  386BSD made the
> mistake of putting a lot of numbers and weird abbreviations into the
> name, and is scaring away a lot of people just because it sounds too
> technical.
	-- Linus Torvalds' follow-up to a question about Linux