Hi Xavier, Thanks for the reply.
On Monday, December 8, 2014 12:58:59 PM UTC-5, Xavier Noria wrote: > Given all this context, I don't think it would be a good idea to load the > constant your proposal suggests to load. On which grounds would > AS::Dependencies special-case that the rightmost segment would have a > special treatment if it lacks the nesting? And why > > A::B::C::M > > should attempt to load A::B::M? That would be really surprising and > AS::Dependencies is not able to distinguish between your example and the > constant path above. All it knows is a constant called "M" has been missing > in a lookup where a class called "A::B::C" is the first element of the > nesting. That's all you know. > I hadn't really considered the case where a reference to A::B::C::M attempts to load A::B::M, and I agree it would be unexpected. This already happens though, in case 1 (just replace the relative reference to M with an absolute reference to A::B::C::M.) It seems that while this behaviour is definitely not correct, it would be nice for it to at least not be order-dependent. It would be nice for the same thing to happen in case 1 and case 2. It seems like without breaking backwards compatibility, there's not much that can be done here. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
