From: transfire@...
Date: 2006-06-23T20:47:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Class#name=


Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: Class#name="
>     on Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:12:27 +0900, "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |irb(main):003:0> A = mod
> |=> A
> |irb(main):004:0> mod.name
> |=> "A"
> |most surprising
> |irb(main):005:0> B = mod
> |=> A
> |irb(main):006:0> mod.name
> |=> "A"
> |even more surprising
> |irb(main):007:0> B.name
> |=> "A"
> |??????
> |irb(main):008:0>
> |
> |Well this kind of shocks me, is there an idea behind this which I am
> |missing?
>
> The module referenced from A and B are the same object (mod).  If same
> module reports different name depends on how it is called, I would
> surprise VERY MUCH.  For your note, Ruby does not promise that you
> don't surprise.  It's just impossible.  It tries its best to do
> reasonable job as much as it can.

Hmm.... This occured to me:

  cut Bc < B
    def name; 'B'; end
  end

  B.name  #=> B
  A.name  #=> A

I'm not saying this is how it works or should work neccessarily, it
just makes me realize that it might possible b/c the cut is a separate
object.

OTOH, one wonders if maybe module#name isn't such a good thing.
Considering my own use of the method, I think in every case I have been
dissatisfied with the solution and eventually removed it.

T.