From: Charlie Somerville Date: 2013-05-08T08:37:38+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:54855] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8377] Deprecate :: for method calls in 2.1 --51898e6e_41a7c4c9_396 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 at 4:35 AM, Hanmac (Hans Mackowiak) wrote: > i am against that, what about methods that are defined in Kernel, but you want when you are inside an BasicObject? > you need something like: > Kernel::Array([]) > or > Kernel.Array([]) > what does make more sense for you? I actually prefer the '::Kernel.Array' example here (although I can see both sides of the argument), just because it makes it perfectly obvious that 'Array' is actually a method call and not something else. On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 at 6:03 AM, Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote: > This is a weird case due to the upper case first letter, what do you think about: > ::Kernel::puts "Hello" > versus > ::Kernel.puts "Hello" I definitely think '::Kernel.puts' is better here. --51898e6e_41a7c4c9_396 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
On W= ednesday, 8 May 2013 at 4:35 AM, Hanmac (Hans Mackowiak) wrote:
i am against that, what about methods that= are defined in Kernel, but you want when you are inside an BasicObject=3F=
you need something like:
Kernel::Array(=5B=5D)
or
Kernel.Array(=5B=5D)
what does make more = sense for you=3F
I actually prefer the '::K= ernel.Array' example here (although I can see both sides of the argument)= , just because it makes it perfectly obvious that 'Array' is actually a m= ethod call and not something else.

On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 at 6:03 AM, Eregon (Benoit Dalo= ze) wrote:

This is a weird case due= to the upper case first letter, what do you think about:
::Ker= nel::puts =22Hello=22
versus
::Kernel.puts =22Hello=22=
I definitely think '::Kernel.puts' is better here= .

--51898e6e_41a7c4c9_396--