“Gavin Sinclair” gsinclair@soyabean.com.au wrote in message
news:038401c25b30$0bb7ade0$c32386cb@nosedog…
I suppose that most math calculations would be isolated to a couple of classes.
These could all “include Math”, thus simplifying the call.Is this good style? Is it the Ruby way? Is there any performance hit by
Well it is very reasonable (I personally I try to avoid this
as much as possible, probably without good reason)
You will eventually get some performance degradation if
the including module contains a looot of (private)
instance_methods …
including the same module in two classes?
- there is almost none I believe …
BTW my question remains unanswered. Christoph mentioned namespaces as if they
were different from modules, and I don’t know what he was talking about.
Yes they would be different (Ruby does not have them yet?)
- for one thing you cannot uninclude modules - something
I definitely would expect from namespaces.
Anyway I am a bit lost what Ruby namespace are
supposed to be in detail - Matz himself was talking them
without providing the latter, leaving plenty of room for
useful(less?) speculations.
Keiju Ishitsuka’s ``scope_in_state’’ pure Ruby extension
fills this gap but I am not sure if this module matches Matz
expectations (nor mine;-) .
/Christoph