See the rest of the thread on ruby-talk; it's already gone past this point. Matz indicated he would rather remove extend_object and append_features. I made the point that "extended" and "included" is itself a false symmetry, because the object gets extended while the module gets included. So to have them both be used as verbs from the module perspective is wrong. The symmetrical version would be something like "included" and "extending".
(Matz hasn't responded to my point yet :-)
Keep in mind that symmetry can be conceptual; it doesn't have to mean that the words look the same. Also, it's not a law; it's just one of many design principles.
-- David Black
David, that a good observation. I would vote yes to "extending". Unfortunatly you posts doesn't show up in my newsreader, so I havn't seen this post until now. If Im not able to see your posts, then perhaps matz isn't able to see them either? That could be the reason that there is no replies?
Its a shame good messages gets lost this way.
-- Simon Strandgaard
See the rest of the thread on ruby-talk; it's already gone past this point. Matz indicated he would rather remove extend_object and append_features. I made the point that "extended" and "included" is itself a false symmetry, because the object gets extended while the module gets included. So to have them both be used as verbs from the module perspective is wrong. The symmetrical version would be something like "included" and "extending".
(Matz hasn't responded to my point yet :-)
Keep in mind that symmetry can be conceptual; it doesn't have to mean that the words look the same. Also, it's not a law; it's just one of many design principles.
-- David Black
David, that a good observation. I would vote yes to "extending". Unfortunatly you posts doesn't show up in my newsreader, so I havn't seen this post until now. If Im not able to see your posts, then perhaps matz isn't able to see them either? That could be the reason that there is no replies?
Its a shame good messages gets lost this way.
-- Simon Strandgaard