Feature #7414
closed
I realise defined? with a constant works just as well but this is about API consistency.
I'd expect const_get & const_defined? to support the same syntax ("Object::Foo").
- Status changed from Open to Assigned
- Assignee set to tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson)
I also noticed this inconsistency. It seems very odd to have different behavior for Module#const_get and Module#const_defined?. I hope it's possible to get this change into 2.0.0. It's been a while since I've written any C but I'd be happy to contribute failing specs if that would be helpful.
I have been working on a patch, but I have some questions about expected behavior.
In the case when the parent is missing, for example:
# Foo is missing
Object.const_defined?("Foo::Bar")
should it return false? Or raise NameError for "Foo"? Or call Object.const_missing(:Foo)?
Second, in the case when the parent is not a Module or Class, for example:
Foo = Object.new
Object.const_defined?("Foo::Bar")
should it return false? Or raise error "Foo is not a class/module"?
I vote for false in both cases, like defined? operator.
aaron, could you continue this discussion?
- Target version changed from 2.0.0 to 2.1.0
- Status changed from Assigned to Closed
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
This issue was solved with changeset r44194.
Robert, thank you for reporting this issue.
Your contribution to Ruby is greatly appreciated.
May Ruby be with you.
object.c: nested path const_defined?
- object.c (rb_mod_const_defined): support nested class path as
well as const_get. [Feature #7414]
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Like0
Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0