If I'm in the middle of module A:
:C, and I want to reference a class
from A::B or from A::D, do I need to do :
:Classname (or
::D::Classname)?
It seems a bit repititous to me. A module shouldn't need to know it's
ancestors all the way up - just what it needs to use. Having to keep
track couples modules to a tree and obstructs refactoring.
So, what say the veteran Rubyists?
Quoting eastcoastcoder@gmail.com:
If I'm in the middle of module A:
:C, and I want to reference a
class from A::B or from A:
do :It seems a bit repititous to me. A module shouldn't need to know
it's ancestors all the way up - just what it needs to use.
Having to keep track couples modules to a tree and obstructs
refactoring.So, what say the veteran Rubyists?
Try it!
module A
module B
class Foo
end
module D
class Bar
end
end
end
module C
p B::Foo
p B::D::Bar
end
end
-mental
mental@rydia.net writes:
Quoting eastcoastcoder@gmail.com:
If I'm in the middle of module A:
class from A::B or from A:
do :It seems a bit repititous to me. A module shouldn't need to know
it's ancestors all the way up - just what it needs to use.
Having to keep track couples modules to a tree and obstructs
refactoring.So, what say the veteran Rubyists?
Try it!
module A
module B
class Foo
end
module D
class Bar
end
end
end
module C
p B::Foo
p B::D::Bar
end
end
It's also worth pointing out that:
class A::Foo
p C
end
is different to:
module A
module B
class Foo
p C
end
end
end
The latter may reference A::C or A::C, whereas the former cannot.
The latter may reference A:
Intersting... why is that?
eastcoastcoder@gmail.com writes:
The latter may reference A:
Intersting... why is that?
Doing "module X::Y::Z" (or "class X::Y::Z") will bring only X::Y::Z::*
constants into scope. Constants from outer modules (X::Y::*, X::*)
aren't brought in. Thus, to get all the nested namespaces in scope,
you need to open each one explicitly.
It's been debated:
