Bug #16332
closed
`defined?` constant access on `nil` is inconsistent with normal constant access
Description
The fix for https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11718 to disallow constant access through nil (e.g. nil::CONSTANT) didn't make a corresponding change for defined?.
This inconsistency can be seen with the example nil::Object, which will raise TypeError, even though defined?(nil::Object) returns "constant". I believe that defined?(nil::Object) should behave the same way as checking if a constant is defined on any other non-namespace object (e.g. defined?(1::Object)), which currently returns nil.
I've opened pull request https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/2657 with a fix for this issue.
Updated by dylants (Dylan Thacker-Smith) almost 6 years ago
- Status changed from Open to Closed
Applied in changeset git|ac112f2b5dc7e16ccde8f048be80946187a033b0.
Avoid top-level search for nested constant reference from nil in defined?
Fixes [Bug #16332]
Constant access was changed to no longer allow top-level constant access
through nil, but defined? wasn't changed at the same time to stay
consistent.
Use a separate defined type to distinguish between a constant
referenced from the current lexical scope and one referenced from
another namespace.