Issue #19742 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria).
@ko1 I think that is a good direction, because with the introduction of temporary names as
a blessed concept with API and all, I believe there are several matching APIs that may
arise. One proposal could be:
```
Module#name -> as it is today
Module#temporary_name -> there is a temporary name or nil
Module#permanent_name -> there is a permanent name or nil
Module#anonymous? -> both temporary and permanent names are nil
```
For example, edges case that test how do we think about this:
```
m = Module.new
m.name #=> nil
m.temporary_name #=> nil
m.permanent_name #=> nil
m.anonymous? #=> true
m::C = Class.new
m::C.name #=> "#<Module:0x0000000102cd4620>::C"
m::C.temporary_name #=> "#<Module:0x0000000102cd4620>::C"
m::C.permanent_name #=> nil
m::C.anonymous? #=> false
M = m
m::C.name #=> "M::C"
m::C.temporary_name #=> nil
m::C.permanent_name #=> "M::C"
m::C.anonymous? #=> false
```
----------------------------------------
Feature #19742: Introduce `Module#anonymous?`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19742#change-106245
* Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
As a follow-on <from
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19521>gt;, 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/