From: Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2009-05-29T07:39:08+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:23604] Re: Defining #name= at the class level

Excerpts from Yukihiro Matsumoto's message of Fri May 29 01:21:19 +0300 2009:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:23593] Defining #name= at the class level"
>     on Fri, 29 May 2009 02:50:24 +0900, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> |1) Defined to work as MRI and YARV, in which case Rubinius would not
> |be compatible for this feature
> |2) Undefined, in which case, test/spec should be patched to not use
> |#name=, as it cannot reliably work across implementations
> |3) Forbidden.  In this case, it'd be nice to see the other
> |implementations fail as Rubinius does.
> 
> I expect Rubinius to work as others, so I choose 1).

There is a related question that I thought of when trying
to navigate through this particular problem: Module#name=
is not defined, why?

If it is thus to protect Module#name, would it be wrong
for an implementation to rely on Module#name being the
"real name" of the Module in some internal context? Or
if not, should Module#name= be defined at the core lib
level?


Eero
--
Magic is insufficiently advanced technology.