From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2010-08-29T05:32:48+09:00
Subject: Re: Name that method!



On Aug 28, 11:10 am, Robert Dober <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Intransition <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 5:38 pm, Brian Candler <b.cand...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> Module#enclosing_module ??
>
> > Foo::Bar could be class. Does that make a difference?
>
> But a class is a module, right? Although more exactly one could argue
> that an instance of a class is a module. Well for me that was good
> enough an approximation.
> As a side note I never use class_eval, but always module_eval.
> However if some do not see a class as a (kind of a) module the name
> would be chosen badly indeed.

Your right it is, and that should suffice, though I recall matz once
talking about the possibility of Module not being a subclass of Class
in Ruby 2.

Just the same, perhaps we can simplify it to just #enclosure ?