From: Kent Dahl <kentda+news@...>
Date: 2004-06-05T18:58:48+09:00
Subject: Re: class A::B verses module A ; class B

Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> module A
>    FOO = 99
> end
> 
> module A
>    class B
>       puts "FOO is #{FOO}"  # => "FOO is 99"
>    end
> end
> 
> class A::B
>    puts "FOO is #{FOO}"  # error
> end
> 
> Comments?  I assumed the two forms were equivalent until I ran into
> this.  Is there a reason they should be different?  I prefer the
> second form, if only to save some indentation space.

I'm on the "hope it's a feature" side on this one. It means you have to 
explicitly open namespaces you want to use, and the A::B shortcut 
notation only opens the last namespace.

Some of this has already been discussed in the thread
"Nested class/module namespace", see [rubytalk:78843] for Matz' answer.

http://rubytalk.com/78843

-- 
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_    _~_    _____[ http://www.pvv.org/~kentda/ ]_____/~
  ))\_student_/((  \__d L b__/     Master of Science in Technology     )
( \__\_�|�_/__/ ) _)  Industrial economics and technology management (
  \____/_�_\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)