convention for deep classes/modules

[David Garamond]

Is the more common convention:

module Foo
module Bar
class Baz
...
end
end
end

or this:

module Foo; end
module Foo::Bar; end
class Foo::Bar::Baz
...
end

I prefer the second because I dislike having to indent several times.

Also, is there a possibility that Ruby will "autovivify":

module Foo::Bar::Baz
class Foo::Bar::Baz2

so it creates modules Foo, Bar, Baz automatically?

 

[Hal Fulton]

Is the more common convention:

I prefer the second because I dislike having to indent several times.

This is possible now but wasn't always. So it may be that older code
didn't do it because it couldn't.

Also, is there a possibility that Ruby will "autovivify":

module Foo::Bar::Baz
class Foo::Bar::Baz2

so it creates modules Foo, Bar, Baz automatically?

I don't think this is possible, because it needs to know at each
step whether the new thing is a class or a module.


Hal

 

[David A. Black]

Hi --

Is the more common convention:

module Foo
module Bar
class Baz
...
end
end
end

or this:

module Foo; end
module Foo::Bar; end
class Foo::Bar::Baz
...
end

I prefer the second because I dislike having to indent several times.

Keep in mind that they're not interchangeable:

module A
X = 1
class B
puts X # A::X is visible here
end
end

module C
X = 1
end

class C::B
puts X # C::X is not visible here
end

Also, is there a possibility that Ruby will "autovivify":

module Foo::Bar::Baz
class Foo::Bar::Baz2

so it creates modules Foo, Bar, Baz automatically?

No, because you can't tell whether the lefthand ones (Foo and Bar in
your example) are modules or classes.


David

 

[Nicholas Van Weerdenburg]

What is the reason they are not interchangeable?

Thanks,
Nick