Issue #19742 has been updated by janosch-x (Janosch Müller). fxn (Xavier Noria) wrote in #note-17:
def self.name [...] I think overriding such a core method for an attribute that is out of reach, managed internally by Ruby, is questionable [...] Can people override `Array#size` to return 7? Yes, they can.
The problem with `name` is that it is a common, uh, name. It is also not as obvious that it is a part of the core as with `Array#size`. Coincidental overrides like [these](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Afaker-ruby%2Ffaker%20name&type=code) are probably somewhat common. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19742: Introduce `Module#anonymous?` https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19742#change-103653 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- As a follow-on <from https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19521>, I'd like propose we introduce `Module#anonymous?`. In some situations, like logging/formatting, serialisation/deserialization, debugging or meta-programming, we might like to know if a class is a proper constant or not. However, this brings about some other issues which might need to be discussed. After assigning a constant, then removing it, the internal state of Ruby still believes that the class name is permanent, even thought it's no longer true. e.g. ``` m = Module.new m.anonymous? # true M = m m.anonyomous # false Object.send(:remove_const, :M) M # uninitialized constant M (NameError) m.anonymous? # false ``` Because RCLASS data structure is not updated after the constant is removed, internally the state still has a "permanent class name". I want to use this proposal to discuss this issue and whether there is anything we should do about such behaviour (or even if it's desirable). Proposed PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/7966 cc @fxn -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/