[ruby-talk:16918] Re: rb_define_class() vs Class.new()

Guy,

What would be the semantics of

  a = Class.new()
  A, B = a, a
  p a.name

?

(without giving any implementation detail, pls)

> K> All of this does not appear to be any argument against having
> K>   Class.new(nameOrSymbol=nil, superClass=Object)
> K> as far as I can tell, even if you demand that a classname starts with
> K> a capital.
> 
> Because you don't really need it.

<pedantic>
Sure, attr_reader is not really needed either.
</pedantic>

Perhaps you mean ``you don't really want it'', which is subtly
different. It may not be true, but I can not find an example atm for
which I really want it.

Note: I redesigned my original stuff because users defining names of
classes is bad, even though users defining names is usually good.

[snip]
>  to create a Class from a String you use #const_set
> 
> pigeon% ruby -e 'Object.const_set("A", Class.new); p A.type'
> Class
> pigeon% 

Let's make a poll on rubygarden :-)

What looks nicer:
 - Object.const_set("A", Class.new)
 - eval("class A; end")
 - Class.new("A")
 - I don't use classes

Bye,
Kero.

PS: I have the feeling I do not get the answers that I am looking for,
but may be I should phrase my questions better. Or may be I can not see
the answers on my screen in Ruby code because I am not familiar enough
with Ruby, yet.

Or may be it is because two discussions are in one chain:
 - the original, to which I gave some answer myself,
 - the derived discussion about A = Class.new() that sets the name of
   the class, which I decided I hate. I try to find a reason for it,
   but so far heard none (and try to find examples for, that show it
   is really, really bad :)
   Oh, well, I can probably live with this deficit, since I found so
   many benefits in Ruby already.

+--- Kero ------------------------------ [e-mail] ---+
|  Don't split your mentality without thinking twice       |
|                          Proud like a God -- Guano Apes  |
+--- M38c ------------------ http://huizen.dds.nl/~kero ---+