[#393742] Getting the class of an object. — Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@...32.com>

Consider;

14 messages 2012/03/06

[#393815] arcadia IDE requires tcl/tk and ruby-tk — Thufir Hawat <hawat.thufir@...>

which or where tcl and tk does arcadia require? Is this a gem which I

13 messages 2012/03/13

[#393952] What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>

Hi!

18 messages 2012/03/21
[#393953] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

Active Support has recently added qualified_const_* methods to Module

[#393954] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

Ah, that won't work in 1.8.

[#393959] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 16:43, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393960] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#393961] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 20:48, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393962] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#393967] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/22

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 22:11, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393969] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/22

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#394154] uninitialized constant SOCKSSocket — Resident Moron <lists@...>

I am running ruby 1.9.3 on a linux box. I would like to use

10 messages 2012/03/29

[#394160] Why z = Complex(1,2) rather than z = Complex.new(1,2)? — Ori Ben-Dor <lists@...>

What's this syntax, z = Complex(1,2), as opposed to z =

14 messages 2012/03/29

[#394175] shoes no such file to load -- rubygems — Mr theperson <lists@...>

I have installed shoes to develop GUI applications but when I try and

13 messages 2012/03/29

[#394201] Can't open url with a subdomain with an underscore — Jeroen van Ingen <lists@...>

I try to open the following URL: http://auto_diversen.marktplaza.nl/

10 messages 2012/03/30

[#394222] Ruby openssl ECC help plz — no name <lists@...>

I am confused on how to properly export public ECC key. I can see it

13 messages 2012/03/31

Re: Why z = Complex(1,2) rather than z = Complex.new(1,2)?

From: "Jan E." <lists@...>
Date: 2012-03-30 13:12:36 UTC
List: ruby-talk #394206
Robert Klemme wrote in post #1054170:
> Do you get that at the calling site or at the definition site?

I get the message when I define the method.



Robert Klemme wrote in post #1054170:
> Jan E. wrote in post #1054047:
>> Another problem is that constants and methods have different lookup
>> algorithms, which doesn't allow you to put the conversion method for a
>> subclass into the same containing module/class (unless you use qualified
>> names all the time).
>
> Can you show an example of what you cannot do?  At the moment I don't
> see the limitation.

As long as you're on top level, you can define a class and the 
corresponding method on the same level:

####
A = Class.new
def A()
  A.new
end

p A
p A()
####

But when the class is inside a module, you cannot define the method in 
this module and access it in the same way as you access the class:

####
module M
  A = Class.new
  def self.A()
    A.new
  end

  class B
    def test
      p A    # this works
      p A()  # this doesn't
    end
  end
end

b = M::B.new
b.test
####

Of course, there's nothing strange about this behaviour. Methods simply 
cannot access "outer methods". But in this context, I find the different 
lookup algorithms counterintutive. You'd have to qualify the method name 
or define it in a different place (like the top level).



Robert Klemme wrote in post #1054170:
> There are far worse "warts" as you call them, for example class
> variables.

Sure.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

In This Thread