From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-06-16T01:49:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Why the lack of mixing-in support for Class methods?

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> 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.

yes it does.  that makes me feel better.  thanks for the explanation.

-a
-- 
suffering increases your inner strength.  also, the wishing for suffering
makes the suffering disappear.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama