Feature #8462
closedModule.remove_const inconsistant naming
Description
The Module class in Ruby has several methods for dealing w/ constants:
const_set
const_get
const_defined?
const_missing
remove_const
The last of which is inconsistently named. I propose that we deprecate this method and create a new one called const_unset (as it's the counterpart to const_set).
Updated by Anonymous over 11 years ago
zzak, I don't see how this is a duplicate of #7414. Did you accidentally post the wrong issue number?
Updated by zzak (zzak _) over 11 years ago
I may have overlooked this feature without a patch it's unclear what they
want so please reopen when you have a patch
On Sunday, June 2, 2013, charliesome (Charlie Somerville) wrote:
Issue #8462 has been updated by charliesome (Charlie Somerville).
zzak, I don't see how this is a duplicate of #7414. Did you accidentally
post the wrong issue number?Feature #8462: Module.remove_const inconsistant naming
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8462#change-39645Author: kyledecot (Kyle Decot)
Status: Rejected
Priority: Normal
Assignee:
Category: core
Target version:The Module class in Ruby has several methods for dealing w/ constants:
const_set
const_get
const_defined?
const_missing
remove_constThe last of which is inconsistently named. I propose that we deprecate
this method and create a new one called const_unset (as it's the
counterpart to const_set).
Updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) over 11 years ago
remove is a dangerous operation, thus named inconsistent, as remove_instance_variable etc.
Matz.
Updated by kyledecot (Kyle Decot) over 11 years ago
I understand that it's a dangerous operation but how does naming it inconsistently make any less so other than making it difficult to find in the documentation? The fact that it's a private method I would think should be protection enough from accidental usage.
matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
remove is a dangerous operation, thus named inconsistent, as remove_instance_variable etc.
Matz.
Updated by kyledecot (Kyle Decot) over 11 years ago
(Sorry for the duplicate post, this one can be deleted)
kyledecot (Kyle Decot) wrote:
I understand that it's a dangerous operation but how does naming it inconsistently make any less so other than making it difficult to find in the documentation? The fact that it's a private method I would think should be protection enough from accidental usage.
matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:
remove is a dangerous operation, thus named inconsistent, as remove_instance_variable etc.
Matz.