From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-08-02T22:38:26+09:00
Subject: Re: convention for deep classes/modules

Hi --

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, David Garamond wrote:

> Is the more common convention:
> 
>   module Foo
>     module Bar
>       class Baz
>         ...
>       end
>     end
>   end
> 
> or this:
> 
>   module Foo; end
>   module Foo::Bar; end
>   class Foo::Bar::Baz
>     ...
>   end
> 
> I prefer the second because I dislike having to indent several times.

Keep in mind that they're not interchangeable:

  module A
    X = 1
    class B
      puts X     # A::X is visible here
    end
  end

  module C
    X = 1
  end

  class C::B
    puts X       # C::X is not visible here
  end


> Also, is there a possibility that Ruby will "autovivify":
> 
>   module Foo::Bar::Baz
>   class Foo::Bar::Baz2
> 
> so it creates modules Foo, Bar, Baz automatically?

No, because you can't tell whether the lefthand ones (Foo and Bar in
your example) are modules or classes.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net