[LRUG] Global methods vs. Kernel mixins

[Tejas Dinkar]

On Jul-18-2013, at 12:39 AM, Rob Miller <rob at bigfish.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm wrong!), and I understand the implications of adding a private method to Kernel (it can only be called as Kernel.foo or totally unprefixed, it doesn't show up as a method on all objects?).
> 
Actually, the private method cannot be called as Kernel.foo. That would be a self method on kernel. In ruby, private only means that the method has to be called with an implicit receiver.
> Surely both ways end up with a global method that's callable from everywhere? Why jump through the hoop of mixing-in to Kernel? Are there any advantages?
> 
Technically not entirely true (that they are global, accessible from everywhere).

Just defining a method will define the method on Object. So in most cases, it should behave similarly, since Object mixes in Kernel.

There are some objects like BasicObject, which does not mix in Kernel.
> Is this some scope-related problem, linked to the fact that he defines a module called Main also (so he couldn't defined a method with the same name)?
> 

Not really. Ruby actually lets you define a method with the same name as a constant.

class Foo
end

def Foo
end

Foo => This returns the class
Foo() => This returns nil
--
Tejas Dinkar
http://www.nilenso.com
Nilenso Software (formerly the consulting arm of C42 Engineering)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20130718/b34dd788/attachment-0003.html>