Issue #21143 has been updated by byroot (Jean Boussier).
I'm just not sure if it might cause compatibility issues, but I suggest to try, we are early in the dev cycle and can always revert if it causes problems.
I feat it might cause issues, as mentioned by @fxn but yes we can try. I should add a spec for that too though. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21143: Speficy order of execution const_added vs inherited https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21143#change-112318 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Feedback ---------------------------------------- The hooks `const_added` and `inherited` may need to be executed "together". For example, consider: ```ruby module M def self.const_added(cname) = ... class C def self.inherited(subclass) = ... end class D < C; end end ``` When `D` is defined, two hooks are set to run, but in which order? Both orders make sense in a way: 1. When `inherited` is called, you can observe that the subclass has a permanent name, ergo it was assigned to a constant, which must me stored in a class or module object. Therefore, the constant was added to said class/module before `inherited` was invoked. 1. When `const_added` is called, you can `const_get` the symbol and observe the object is a class, hence with a superclass, hence inheritance already happened. The patch in [ruby#12759](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/12759) documents and adds a test for (1). Rationale: 1. I believe it would be nice to specify this order. 1. Chose (1) because it is how it works today. While the motivation for the patch was formal (to remove an ambiguity), after reflecting about this I realized users of Zeitwerk may depend on this. Nowadays, Zeitwerk uses `const_added` to set autoloads for child constants in namespaces. Thanks to the current order, code can be used in `inherited` hooks normally (it would not be ready if the order was different). -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/