From: Alexander Schofield <pcs3@...>
Date: 2002-02-21T11:38:23+09:00
Subject: Re: confused about '::' vs '.' in method calls

Not exactly:

[/C/ruby]$ cat try.rb
class C
  def self.cmeth
    puts 'class method'
  end
  def self.Ucmeth
    puts 'uppercase class method'
  end
end

C.cmeth
C::cmeth
C.Ucmeth
C::Ucmeth()
C::Ucmeth
[/C/ruby]$ ruby try.rb
class method
class method
uppercase class method
uppercase class method
try.rb:14: uninitialized constant Ucmeth at C (NameError)


Raphael Clancy wrote:
> 
> I must admit I'm a bit confused... probably because I never realy
> understood the scope resoultion opperator when I learned C++, but I'm used
> to seeing '::' when you want to show the scope of a method... Foo::Bar()
> means Bar is a method in Foo called like so aFoo.Bar()... now in ruby, '::'
> and '.' seem to be interchangeable... that is I can use both aFoo::Bar()
> and aFoo.Bar() to call Bar on aFoo. In 'Ruby in a nutshell' Matz puts heavy
> emphasis on using '::' for class methods, but the pick-axe book tends to
> favor '.' Does it really matter which way you go? Are '::' and '.'
> functionaly the same? Sorry if this is old hat, but I had a hard time
> making google search the archive for '::' and '.' ;)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> R.


HTH
-- 
Alexander Schofield