From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2004-06-05T21:35:29+09:00
Subject: Re: class A::B verses module A ; class B

On Saturday, June 5, 2004, 7:58:48 PM, Kent wrote:

> 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.

I dislike the behaviour displayed above.  But your explanation for it
is quite reasonable.

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

> http://rubytalk.com/78843

I think in Ruby 2.0 there will be a change in the way constants are
resolved (see Matz's slides, wherever they lay).  That would most
likely mean that how you arrived at a particular namespace is
irrelevant.

Gavin