From: Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>
Date: 2003-08-14T00:34:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Nested class/module namespace

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

> "Nathaniel Talbott" writes:
> 
> |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.

OK.


> |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?

Ah, now I begin to understand (but perhaps not agree). I think of M & C in
'class M::C' as separate entities. But it seems that you think of M::C in
'class M::C' as a single entity. I guess our intuitive view of what that
construct represents is in conflict. Of cousre, yours always wins...

My biggest concern is not so much for my code, as I can either leave it
as-is or just adapt it to use this new construct as it makes sense. My
concern more lies in the fact that when I saw that 'class M::C' now worked,
I thought that it would work exactly like 'class M; class C end; end', but
it didn't. Having two very similar constructs that behave in such different
ways seems surprising, and I fear it will become a frequent puzzlement for
new users. Plus, while I can understand it working that way, I still can't
give a pragmatic reason other than, "It would confuse matz if it were the
other way."


Nathaniel

<:((><