From: eregontp@... Date: 2020-05-24T10:19:27+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:98500] [Ruby master Misc#16910] BasicObject is resolved in BasicObject Issue #16910 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). As you found, I think it's just a special case that BasicObject has a constant named "BasicObject". It's defined here in CRuby: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/b10c9d201222b144df7d63660d1c731af53c4ae2/class.c#L569 And here in TruffleRuby: https://github.com/oracle/truffleruby/blob/e2680f10e367eaca2069636109918541b682a7a0/src/main/java/org/truffleruby/core/CoreLibrary.java#L813-L814 I'm not sure why there is this exception, since all other constants basically don't work in a subclass of BasicObject, they need `::Const`. ---------------------------------------- Misc #16910: BasicObject is resolved in BasicObject https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16910#change-85776 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I categorized this as Misc because I do not really know if this is a bug, or perhaps I miss some special rule in the resolution of relative constants. Basically, I would expect ```ruby class C < BasicObject BasicObject end ``` or, even simpler, ```ruby class BasicObject BasicObject end ``` to raise `NameError`. Reason would be that top-level constants are stored in `Object`, which is not among the ancestors in any of the two examples above. Is my reasoning flawed or is it a bug? If flawed, which is the correct reasoning? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: