From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2006-06-16T01:29:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?

Hi,

In message "Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?"
    on Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:50:43 +0900, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov writes:

|     p M::class_extension::const_get(:File)  # File
|     p M::class_extension::File              # exception!

The difference here is caused because a class statement with in
module_eval defines a constant in the innermost surrounding class /
module (M, this case) in 1.8, and const_get looks ancestors for
constants by default, where double colons do not.

In 1.9, a class statement in module_eval defines a constant in the
target module (anonymous class_extension module in this case).  So
that it gives:

  File
  File
  my_file
  my_file
  /tmp/c.rb:42: warning: toplevel constant File referenced by M::File
  File
  File
  my_file
  my_file

for 1.9 that means the new File class is defined under anonymous
class_extension module.  It seems more consistent and simple.

							matz.