Module#name for anonymous modules

ruby-talk
1

Observation:

  mod = Module.new
  mod.name #=> ""

Maybe it would more friendly if Module#name returned nil in this case?
Then one could more easily say:

  if mod.name
    ...
  end

T.

2

Hi,

···

In message "Re: Module#name for anonymous modules" on Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:08:20 +0900, transfire@gmail.com writes:

Observation:

mod = Module.new
mod.name #=> ""

Maybe it would more friendly if Module#name returned nil in this case?
Then one could more easily say:

if mod.name
   ...
end

OK. It will be for 1.9 or later.

              matz.

3

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

Hi,

>Observation:
>
> mod = Module.new
> mod.name #=> ""
>
>Maybe it would more friendly if Module#name returned nil in this case?
>Then one could more easily say:
>
> if mod.name
> ...
> end

OK. It will be for 1.9 or later.

Hmm, I think it may be too indirect. You aren't really checking whether the module has a name or not, but rather if it's anonymous. Maybe an #anonymous? method for both Module and Class, in addition to #name being nil?

Cheers,
Daniel

···

In message "Re: Module#name for anonymous modules" > on Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:08:20 +0900, transfire@gmail.com writes:

4

Isn't that the very definition of anonymous? "without a name"

:slight_smile:

- Dimitri

···

On 6/22/06, Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm, I think it may be too indirect. You aren't really checking whether
the module has a name or not, but rather if it's anonymous.

5

Dimitri Aivaliotis wrote:

···

On 6/22/06, Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm, I think it may be too indirect. You aren't really checking whether
the module has a name or not, but rather if it's anonymous.

Isn't that the very definition of anonymous? "without a name"

Good point :slight_smile:

I still think it's less mysterious to users if they could check the anonymity of a module/class with an #anonymous? method, rather than checking whether the name is nil.

Cheers,
Daniel