From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2003-08-14T00:12:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Nested class/module namespace

Hi,

In message "Re: Nested class/module namespace"
    on 03/08/13, "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@NOSPAMtalbott.ws> writes:

|> Because it's not nested at all.  It is confusing for me, if 
|> it behaves like nesting.  Nested constant scope was 
|> introduced only for one purpose.
|> 
|>   module M
|>     class C
|>        C.foo     # want to access C here.
|>     end
|>   end
|
|Oops... I guess I've been using it incorrectly :-). So it's not for this
|reason?
|
|  module M
|    class C
|      M::FOO       # want to access M here.
|    end
|  end

I didn't express my idea correctly.  M too should be covered by nested
constant scope.

|Well, this seems a little confusing to me:
|
|  class M::C
|    def C.m
|    end
|  end
|
|  => NameError: uninitialized constant M::C::C
|
|If it had nested scope, this wouldn't happen, right?

Right, but you were going to define M::C, not plain C, were you?

							matz.