Activesupport bug?


#1

Ruby 1.9 does not work with rails. My ruby1.9 cannot work with rails
and
produces an error message about == and >= so why not remove these ?

In activesupport/lib/active_support module ActiveSupport is the
following

module ActiveSupport
if defined? ::BasicObject
class BasicObject < ::BasicObject
undef_method :==
undef_method :equal?

  # Let ActiveSupport::BasicObject at least raise exceptions.
  def raise(*args)
    ::Object.send(:raise, *args)
  end
end

else
require ‘blankslate’
BasicObject = BlankSlate
end
end

For a start the method as equal? means a.object_id == b.object_id
Getting rid of it seems a mistake
Further the Object.eql? and Object.== are both Object.equal? and the
former two are often redefined at children of object.

Secondly,Within

            if defined? ::BasicObject

::BasicObject seems to be an attempt to refers to constant
in Object::BasicObject because
if ActiveSupport::BasicObject

does not seem intelligent. The person who is altering the
same module already knows whether a constant called ::BasicObject
is defined at this same lexical level as the module as ActiveSupport.

Using explicit namespace would avoid my confusion.

Are trying to decide whether ActiveSupport::BasicObject is already
defined?

I presume not.

So assuming that we are trying to discover whether there is a constant
called ::BasicSupport which refers to an instance of the class as
BasicObject, which is only within ruby 1.9 and not 1.8

From outside of a class and within a module the method as
self.ancestor
needs to be used so to discover constants within are inside of the
scope of the object as Object, such as Object::BasicObject , and to
discover constants within are inside of the scope of the object as
BasicObject, such as BasicObject::BasicObject the method as
Object.ancestors
is required.

When we do this

 class ActiveSupport::BasicObject < ::BasicObject
 end

we can find a constant called BasicObject with the top level scope
of Object, which is Object::BasicObject because this is referenced
within the definition of a class and this will check the top-level
scope without having to make an explicit call to self.ancestors, even
though this class definition is made within a module.

So if the constant as Object::BasicOject is a constant which refers to
an object which is an instance of the class as BasicObject
we have bypassed the class as Object
Is this correct?
Where have the comparable methods gone?
Are those mixed in at the level of BasicObject. I don’t know the answer
at present.

What do you think?
Am I wrong? I am new to ruby. I read the O’Reilly book this summer
learnt this from this book.

David Roderick


#2

I’m afraid you’re asking on the wrong mailing list. This one is for
Ruby, the language itself.

Rails is written in Ruby, but is such a substantial and complex project
in its own right that there are other mailing lists and forums devoted
to it.