From: Intransition <transfire@...>
Date: 2011-06-09T00:27:06+09:00
Subject: Re: a little challenge - reproduce this error

On Jun 8, 10:56 am, Christopher Dicely <cmdic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The top-level X (and the Foo underneath it) seems required to get the
> error, so that doesn't make it harder. If you reference X::Foo::X
> without X existing, you'll get
> uninitialized constant Object::X (NameError)
>
> If you reference X::Foo::X with just the part you have above, you'll
> get uninitialized constant X::Foo (NameError)
>
> The easiest way to get the error you ask about is
> module X; module Foo; end; end
> X::Foo::X

Well, Balls. That in itself seems ridiculous, but you are right. I'm
not sure why it raises that though. Maybe the code is silly, but is it
really wrong? Try X::Foo.const_get(:X) and it works fine. Seems
inconsistent, doesn't it?

> But I would guess that that probably isn't what you are looking for either.

Yes, in the actual code X is being referenced from within Foo but is
not fully qualified.