From: Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
Date: 2003-08-13T08:08:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Nested class/module namespace

Yukihiro Matsumoto [mailto:matz@ruby-lang.org] wrote:

> In message "Nested class/module namespace"
>     on 03/08/12, "Nathaniel Talbott" 
> <nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws> writes:
> 
> |Why does the second case fail? It makes me not want to use
> |the second version, since it means I have to fully-qualify
> |all constants in the enclosing namespace, instead of just
> |using them as I usually do. I hope it's just a bug :-/.
> 
> Unfortunately, it's not.  "class M::C" notation is not a 
> syntax sugar for 'module M; class C".  It is something like 
> "M::C = Class.new", so that the body of C definition is not 
> nested in the M body.

What is the motivation behind the current behavior? Is it that way because
of difficulty in implementing it differently, or for some other reason?

Thanks,


Nathaniel

<:((><