Constant Resolution Confusion

I was surprised by the following this weekend:

module Foo
module Bar; end
class Whee1
include Bar
end
end

All is well

class Foo::Whee2
include Bar
end
#=> uninitialized constant Foo::Whee2::Bar (NameError)

Is the answer simply “lexically scoped resolution”?

Is the above still the case with 1.9?

On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 03:10 +0900, Phrogz wrote:

class Foo::Whee2
include Bar
end
#=> uninitialized constant Foo::Whee2::Bar (NameError)

Is the answer simply “lexically scoped resolution”?

Is the above still the case with 1.9?

Yuck…
And yes “problem” persists with Ruby1.9.


Let them talk of their oriental summer climes of everlasting
conservatories; give me the privilege of making my own summer with my
own coals.

http://gnufied.org

On Dec 17, 12:07 pm, Phrogz [email protected] wrote:

class Foo::Whee2
include Bar
end
#=> uninitialized constant Foo::Whee2::Bar (NameError)

Is the answer simply “lexically scoped resolution”?

Is the above still the case with 1.9?

Maybe it’s because (I assume) this is a paired-down example, but in
the example class Whee1 is in the scope of module Foo, and so is
module Bar, but module Bar isn’t in the scope of class Foo::Whee2, so
you have to include it as qualified Foo::Bar. It doesn’t look like
module Bar is lexically scoped to class Foo.

Regards,
Jordan

On Dec 17, 11:47 am, MonkeeSage [email protected] wrote:

end

Is the above still the case with 1.9?

Maybe it’s because (I assume) this is a paired-down example, but in
the example class Whee1 is in the scope of module Foo, and so is
module Bar, but module Bar isn’t in the scope of class Foo::Whee2, so
you have to include it as qualified Foo::Bar. It doesn’t look like
module Bar is lexically scoped to class Foo.

The actual situation was that I started writing code all nested as in
the first example. Everything was working, my unit tests were passing,
all was right with the world.

But I didn’t like the nesting. The extra level of folding was getting
in the way, and the non-explicit nesting made my function pop up not
the way I wanted.

So I changed the code in a way that I thought was purely formatting; I
pulled the classes (and modules) out to the top level with an explicit
Foo:: prefix for each. And I was surprised when my code stopped
working.

It was simple enough to see the error, and not very painful to find
all the cases where I had included the module and also add the Foo::
prefix. But it surprised me. Despite likely reading about this issue
previously, I had thought constant resolution would not be affected by
that particular edit.

shrug

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs