From: Michael Fellinger <m.fellinger@...>
Date: 2007-12-28T01:05:20+09:00
Subject: Re: [BUG] Ruby 1.9.0: possible bug when subclassing BasicObject

On Dec 28, 2007 12:52 AM, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2007, at 4:10 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
>
> > BasicObject is intended to impose the minimum implementation for use
> > by things like proxies.  Leaving the namespace as empty as possible
> > seems to me to be a good thing.  And as your example points out you
> > can get at things in the global namespace by explicitly using the ::
> > prefix.
>
> I think it is a mere consequence of BasicObject not being an Object
> (BasicObject is the new root class). As you know Object is still the
> class where top-level constants are stored, so subclasses of
> BasicObject knows nothing about top-level constants.
>
> That affects top-level methods as well, for example you can't even
> call puts or raise directly from within a BasicObject.

Thank you very much, that's what i suspected. Quite useful actually.

^ manveru