[ruby-core:121192] [Ruby master Misc#21154] Document or change Module#autoload?

Issue #21154 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria).


Hi @mame.

My main motivation for starting this discussion was to 1) understand Ruby better, 2) bring some inconsistencies to the attention of the Ruby team and ask for clarification (here, I assumed the team knows autoload inside out and matz would instantly know the correct mental model/logic, your reply yesterday helped me understand this assumption is not entirely correct) 3) know what to write in my book.

Now that I understand better how dev meetings work and how issues are evaluated, I am not sure the use case in Zeitwerk affected by this behavior is worth a debate.

Lastly, let me address this sentence:

> I had misunderstood that you were hiding your use cases and somewhat challenging us.

You can be 100% confident I'd never do that.

My questions & discussions are in good faith and with an OSS collaboration spirit.

I have a huge respect for everybody in the Ruby team. When I wrote Zeitwerk, I told Matz that if he wanted to keep the deprecation of autoload I'd cancel the project, and I meant it. Suggested to Matz in Sarajevo last year that if he wanted to remove autoload from Ruby and think of an alternative, I'd be OK and willing to help.

We may agree or disagree in specific technical details, that is normal, but always with good intention!

I think we can close, thanks @mame!

----------------------------------------
Misc #21154: Document or change Module#autoload?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21154#change-112129

* Author: fxn (Xavier Noria)
* Status: Open
----------------------------------------
The documentation of `Module#autoload?` says

> Returns filename to be loaded if name is registered as autoload in the namespace of mod or one of its ancestors.

Cool, but in the following snippet

```ruby
autoload :Foo, 'foo'
autoload?(:Foo)
```

the second line could evaluate to `nil`, and this does not seem to agree. I just registered an autoload, therefore (according to the documentation) I should get "foo" back in line 2.

I'd like to ask for clarification from the Ruby team:

1. Is the documentation complete? Should that second line always return "foo"?
2. If the answer is no, which is the logic missing in the docs?

Thank you!



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
 ______________________________________________
 ruby-core mailing list -- [e-mail]
 To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
 ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/lists/ruby-core.ml.ruby-lang.org/