[ruby-talk:16944] Re: rb_define_class() vs Class.new()

Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:16937] Re: rb_define_class() vs Class.new()"
    on 01/06/27, Kero van Gelder <[e-mail]> writes:

|> Unnamed class object is referenced from two constants A and B.  When
|> a.name is called (or whenever class name is required), Ruby looks for
|> the class name via internal constant table.  Since constant table is a
|> hash, it's hard to tell name would be either A or B.
|
|1) I asked to leave implementation details out of this. I think a hash
|   is such a detail :)

Oops. ;-)

|2) A, B = a, a sets a.name() to return B (on my machine?), however
|   A = a; B = a sets a.name() to return A, so I probably don't
|   understand which hash you mean anyway.

OK.  I try again.  When a.name is called (or whenever class name is
required), where a is a class unnamed yet, and referenced from
multiple constants, it chooses arbitrary constant name for its name.
Does this make things clear?

|The name of a class is _the_ name of that class.
|I do not understand what you mean with ``just a name''.

Dave answered for you in [ruby-talk:16939].  I can't think of any
better answer than that.

							matz.