From: Nicholas Van Weerdenburg <nick@...>
Date: 2004-08-03T14:42:58+09:00
Subject: Re: convention for deep classes/modules

What is the reason they are not interchangeable?

Thanks,
Nick

David A. Black wrote:

>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
>
>  
>