From: "sferik (Erik Michaels-Ober)" <sferik@...>
Date: 2012-12-04T16:35:45+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:50550] [ruby-trunk - Feature #7414] Now that const_get supports "Foo::Bar" syntax, so should const_defined?.


Issue #7414 has been updated by sferik (Erik Michaels-Ober).


I also noticed this inconsistency. It seems very odd to have different behavior for Module#const_get and Module#const_defined?. I hope it's possible to get this change into 2.0.0. It's been a while since I've written any C but I'd be happy to contribute failing specs if that would be helpful.
----------------------------------------
Feature #7414: Now that const_get supports "Foo::Bar" syntax, so should const_defined?.
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7414#change-34392

Author: robertgleeson (Robert Gleeson)
Status: Assigned
Priority: Normal
Assignee: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)
Category: 
Target version: 2.0.0


class Foo
end
Object.const_get "Object::Foo" => Foo
Object.const_defined? "Object::Foo" => NameError (expected true).


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