
Issue #19520 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams).
Yes, that has the same problem, but my suggestion was to make to_s and inspect respect the value of display_name if it was set, so that it would not have the same problem outlined above.
We could certainly explore this option, but I'm sure the change is more extensive.
I still don't understand why we would want to risk breaking so many assumptions existing code has already made about how constants and constant names work
I don't understand this argument at all. The assumptions are already broken by the trivial examples already given. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19520: Support for `Module.new(name)` and `Class.new(superclass, name)`. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19520#change-102317 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- See <https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19450> for previous discussion and motivation. [This proposal](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/7376) introduces the `name` parameter to `Class.new` and `Module.new`: ```ruby Class.new(superclass, name) Module.new(name) ``` As a slight change, we could use keyword arguments instead. ## Example usage The current Ruby test suite has code which shows the usefulness of this new method: ```ruby def labeled_module(name, &block) Module.new do singleton_class.class_eval { define_method(:to_s) {name} alias inspect to_s alias name to_s } class_eval(&block) if block end end module_function :labeled_module def labeled_class(name, superclass = Object, &block) Class.new(superclass) do singleton_class.class_eval { define_method(:to_s) {name} alias inspect to_s alias name to_s } class_eval(&block) if block end end module_function :labeled_class ``` The updated code would look like this: ```ruby def labeled_module(name, &block) Module.new(name, &block) end def labeled_class(name, superclass = Object, &block) Class.new(superclass, name, &block) end module_function :labeled_class ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/