From: "fxn (Xavier Noria)" <noreply@...>
Date: 2022-06-17T10:08:53+00:00
Subject: [ruby-core:108980] [Ruby master Bug#18832] Suspicious superclass mismatch

Issue #18832 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria).


A good exercise is to try to document this (all lookups should be documented). Something like:

> In the `class/module` keywords, the constant is checked in the cref. If present, the object is retrieved. If it is a class/module respectively, reopened, otherwise, error condition. In the case of `Object`, ancestors are checked also and the object reopened if found because... WHY?

Does the team believe this documentation makes sense?

----------------------------------------
Bug #18832: Suspicious superclass mismatch
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18832#change-98085

* Author: fxn (Xavier Noria)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
The following code:

```ruby
module M
  class C
  end
end

include M

p Object.const_defined?(:C, false)

class C < String # (1)
end
```

prints `false`, as expected, but then raises `superclass mismatch for class C (TypeError)` at (1).

I believe this is a bug, because `Object` itself does not have a `C` constant, so (1) should just work, and the superclasse of `M::C` should be irrelevant.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>