[holy ruby programmers batman!] Adding a configuration file to Utility Belt

Giles Bowkett gilesb at gmail.com
Sun Dec 23 13:59:45 EST 2007


> > We're really just talking about a method which provides an
> > interface to require
>
> and to mix itself in.  I definitely like the approach that I believe
> you have been leaning towards of Module[lerizing] all the
> functionality, as opposed to just doing dynamic requires based on
> "equip" while keeping it all in files that just reopen the classes,
> anyways.  Imo, if done right, this part (not requiring unused libs)
> could almost be a free side-benefit of that (Modularizing the UB code
> itself).  And it gives you (and other people who want to hack on top
> of it), finer grained control over the whole process.

Yes. I was hoping to use modules exclusively but I really didn't think
it through. Any time you define methods without specifying an object
you're hitting Object. You can use Kernel instead, but only because it
gets mixed into Object. I looked into the mixing into IRB's methods
thing but I didn't figure it out. It looks pretty cool and would be a
good way to avoid incompatibilities with method names in other
libraries.

-- 
Giles Bowkett

Podcast: http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com


More information about the Utilitybelt-tinkering mailing list