<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Thanks, that clears some things up — but I'm still left with the question of why you'd do that rather than just defining a global method? Seems an unnecessary hoop to jump through. </div><div><br></div><div>Rob</div><div><br>On 18 Jul 2013, at 08:33, Tejas Dinkar <<a href="mailto:tejas@c42.in">tejas@c42.in</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><div><div>On Jul-18-2013, at 12:39 AM, Rob Miller <<a href="mailto:rob@bigfish.co.uk">rob@bigfish.co.uk</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="auto" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">I'm wrong!), and I understand the implications of adding a private method to Kernel (it can only be called as <code>Kernel.foo</code><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>or totally unprefixed, it doesn't show up as a method on all objects?).</p></blockquote>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.<br><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="auto" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">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?</p></blockquote><div>Technically not entirely true (that they are global, accessible from everywhere).<div><br></div><div>Just defining a method will define the method on Object. So in most cases, it should behave similarly, since Object mixes in Kernel.</div><div><br></div><div>There are some objects like BasicObject, which does not mix in Kernel.</div></div><blockquote type="cite"></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="auto" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">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)?</p></blockquote></div><div>Not really. Ruby actually lets you define a method with the same name as a constant.</div><div><br></div><div>class Foo</div><div>end</div><div><br></div><div>def Foo</div><div>end</div><div><br></div><div>Foo => This returns the class</div><div>Foo() => This returns nil</div><div>
--<br>Tejas Dinkar<br><a href="http://www.nilenso.com">http://www.nilenso.com</a><br>Nilenso Software (formerly the consulting arm of C42 Engineering)<br>
</div>
<br></div></blockquote></body></html>