On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Mislav Marohnić
wrote:
> Looks like remnants of the old reloading system?
> So, if some classes (like ActiveRecord) in the framework implement their own
> `subclasses`, why not implement it once in AS and remove those other
> implementations?
Sounds good because
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:44, Xavier Noria wrote:
> That in turn unrolled a series of related utilities that were unused, they
> are:
>
> Object#subclasses_of
> Object#remove_subclasses_of
> Object#extended_by
> Object#extend_with_included_modules_from
> Class#remove_subclasses
> Cla
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Michael Koziarski
wrote:
>> Ah, but they are not equivalent because AC::Base#subclasses includes
>> names of non-reachable class objects, whereas Class#subclasses filters
>> them out.
>
> This difference is probably just to enable reset_subclasses to work
> around
> Ah, but they are not equivalent because AC::Base#subclasses includes
> names of non-reachable class objects, whereas Class#subclasses filters
> them out.
This difference is probably just to enable reset_subclasses to work
around the ruby memory-leak discussed at length on:
http://rails.lighthou
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Xavier Noria wrote:
> AS defines Class#subclasses, it returns the name of all descendants
> (strings). Same as AC::Base.subclasses.
Ah, but they are not equivalent because AC::Base#subclasses includes
names of non-reachable class objects, whereas Class#subclasse
