# Adding, removing and redefining features at runtime **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [26 September 2003 01:04 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/adding-removing-and-redefining-features-at-runtime/8263 "2003-09-26T01:04:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Austin\_Ziegler2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@Austin\_Ziegler2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler2)\ **Post date:** [26 September 2003 19:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/adding-removing-and-redefining-features-at-runtime/8263/21 "2003-09-26T19:44:32Z")
The reason I suggest it is that while there aren’t too many extensions (yet), there are possibilities for more. In the ruwiki stuff that I did for version 0.5.0, I made it so that you can add new transformation items in a subdirectory and they will be loaded appropriately when you load the “main” item, as I’ve specified. By allowing more specific granularity (and I’m not suggesting file-per-method, but rather “logical” grouping), you make it so that people don’t have to load all of the extensions that are available. -austin > **···** > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:43:09 +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote: > > > > IMO, the way to avoid bloat is like this: > > > ext.rb # loads everything > > > ext/numeric > > > ext/numeric.rb # loads all extensions to Numeric classes > > > ext/numeric/format.rb > > > ext/enumerable > > > ext/enumerable.rb # loads all extensions to Enumerable > > > ext/enumerable/map.rb > > > > The file ext/numeric/format.rb could contain the number formatting > > > routine I wrote and is currently on the RubyGarden wiki. If there are > > > other numeric formatting routines, they could be put there as well. The > > > file ext/enumerable/map.rb could contain #map\_with\_index. > > > What I have chosen is: > > > require “extensions/all” # everything > > require “extensions/enumerable” > > require “extensions/io” > > require “extensions/string” > > > Since these deal exclusively with modifications to core classes, it makes > > sense to me that the things you load should be named after them. It > > doesn’t make sense to me that finer granularity is required, because: (a) > > it’s too much to remember and too much hassle to look up; and (b) the > > extensions shouldn’t be so numerous as to require it. > > – > austin ziegler \* austin@halostatue.ca \* Toronto, ON, Canada > software designer \* pragmatic programmer \* 2003.09.26 > \* 15.39.48 ---
**Author:** ![HAL\_9000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/90ced4/32.png) [@HAL\_9000](https://rubytalk.org/u/HAL_9000)\ **Post date:** [26 September 2003 17:52 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/adding-removing-and-redefining-features-at-runtime/8263/22 "2003-09-26T17:52:37Z")
Mauricio Fernández wrote: > **···** > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 02:19:15AM +0900, Hal Fulton wrote: > > > > > I like the “mapf” idea someone had (map function). Example: > > > Instead of > > > array.map {|x| x.capitalize } > > > we could do > > > array.mapf(:capitalize) > > > > Florian Gross found one way to do > > > > array.map(&:capitalize) > > > > (defining Symbol#to\_proc), if you can stand the line noise. > > I’d probably prefer mapf. But this solution is elegant > and interesting. I didn’t even realize there was a to\_proc. > > Hal ---
**Author:** ![Gavin\_Sinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gavin\_Sinclair](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gavin_Sinclair)\ **Post date:** [26 September 2003 23:53 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/adding-removing-and-redefining-features-at-runtime/8263/23 "2003-09-26T23:53:26Z")
> > > IMO, the way to avoid bloat is like this: > > > ext.rb # loads everything > > > ext/numeric > > > ext/numeric.rb # loads all extensions to Numeric classes > > > ext/numeric/format.rb > > > ext/enumerable > > > ext/enumerable.rb # loads all extensions to Enumerable > > > ext/enumerable/map.rb > > > […] > > What I have chosen is: > > require “extensions/all” # everything > > require “extensions/enumerable” > > require “extensions/io” > > require “extensions/string” > > […] > The reason I suggest it is that while there aren’t too many extensions > (yet), there are possibilities for more. In the ruwiki stuff that I did for > version 0.5.0, I made it so that you can add new transformation items in a > subdirectory and they will be loaded appropriately when you load the “main” > item, as I’ve specified. I like plugin concepts as well, but I don’t know how useful it is here, as the point of the package is to provide a known interface and implementation, not to allow extra user-defined extensions. > By allowing more specific granularity (and I’m not suggesting > file-per-method, but rather “logical” grouping), you make it so that people > don’t have to load all of the extensions that are available. That’s fair enough, if someone can think of some logical groupings. And in the (usual) case where there aren’t enough extensions to warrant a grouping, it can degenerate. Thus require ‘extensions/enumerable/mwi’ require ‘extensions/string’ I still believe YAGNI, so it’s something that will evolve as needed. Personally, I would always require ‘extensions/all’ because I don’t care about startup costs (within reason) and would be on the lookout for collisions. Besides, all the methods are supposed to be a ntural fit within Ruby, and I never think “Hey! I’m getting all this Process functionality I never asked for!” 😉 > -austin Gavin > **···** > > On Saturday, September 27, 2003, 5:44:32 AM, Austin wrote: > > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:43:09 +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote: [Previous page](https://rubytalk.org/t/adding-removing-and-redefining-features-at-runtime/8263.md?page=1)