Issue #21385 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113490 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). More evidence. The CRuby code base has the predicate `rb_namespace_p` (I think, since Ruby 2.7): ```c static inline bool rb_namespace_p(VALUE obj) { if (RB_SPECIAL_CONST_P(obj)) return false; switch (RB_BUILTIN_TYPE(obj)) { case T_MODULE: case T_CLASS: return true; default: break; } return false; } ``` and now it has a macro with similar name, but different meaning: ```c #define IS_NAMESPACE(obj) (CLASS_OF(obj) == rb_cNamespace) ``` ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113493 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by baweaver (Brandon Weaver). Some other ideas: * Package - Some conflict with Packwerk, but then again would likely be used with it very quickly. * Capsule - Similar to Package * Realm - Bit Tolkien-esque, but no significant precedence in Ruby of this name being used. * Zone - Similar implications as Realm, but a bit less archaic. Personally fond of Package, as it encapsulates a lot of what we would want out of such a feature, and also aligns with common tool usage that would be likely to leverage such features. Context can be mixed with RSpec a bit, but probably not a _huge_ issue. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113513 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria). When I explain the feature a concept that I use naturally is "execution context". Like, "foo.rb runs in its own execution context, and that is set externally, foo.rb is not aware of it." ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113522 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by cheba (Alexander Mankuta). hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) wrote in #note-9:

FYI: `Context` is conflict with Mastodon.

I’m fairly confident we can find at least 2 instances of `Namespace` in the wild. I don’t think this argument has much weight. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113566 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). I have to make myself clear. It's fine for me, if we rename Namespace. Matz. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113603 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by byroot (Jean Boussier). Regarding the name conflict, if this is meant as a low level API, we could consider something under the newly introduced `Ruby` module. E.g. `Ruby::Context`, `Ruby::Namespace`, etc etc. This also doesn't prevent deprecating the use of the equivalent top-level constant name for a potential alias in the future if that is desired. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113611 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada). other ideas: * NameSpace (from ObjectSpace) * NameCapsule * RootNamespace * ModuleGroup * ModuleBag * ModuleSpace (by ledsun) (Namespace also separates global variables though) ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113628 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). * Space * Verse * Scope * ClassLoader (joke) * Classbox ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113667 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). For me "context" means something like `context = binding.eval("self")`, so I can't say I like `Context` very much for this. Actually none of the one-word suggestions sound quite right to me; they're either too generic or too cryptic. I think that `Namespace` is not such a bad name; classes loaded in one are not visible to the others, it really is a space for names, a namespace. It's just not a named namespace like classes and modules (assuming that #21316 is fixed). But the fact that core classes are "forked" in each namespace is something that the word `Namespace` doesn't convey. So yes it's a space for names, but not merely that. I think "sandbox" is really a descriptive word here, and btw I disagree that it must necessarily have a security connotation. `Ruby::NameSandbox` ? ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113691 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by masterleep2 (Bill Lipa). * Shard - from MMOs - also has the connotation that using this feature carelessly could result in hurting yourself * Isolator ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113693 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by tagomoris (Satoshi Tagomori). My idea that popped up recently is, "Ruby Box", referenced as `Ruby::Box`. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113865 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21385 has been updated by matheusrich (Matheus Richard). Another reason why I think `Ruby::Context` is good is because it's a good metaphor. Like a human language, a sentence can be interpreted differently depending on the context it's spoken. That analogy matches this feature, as it *makes Ruby code (potentially) be interpreted differently depending on the context*. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-114192 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/