Issue #19742 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria).
@jeremyevans0 I agree.
My defense of `anonymous == name.nil?` is based on the meaning of the adjective, as you
said. You are anonymous unless you have a name. The discrepancy in this thread comes from
"I have use cases in which I want to know if it does not have a permanent name".
Well, fair enough, but that does not mean `anonymous?` is a good name. For example,
`permanent_name.nil?` is crystal clear in contrast, and the correspondence would be
`permanent_name?` (not proposing, just for the sake of the argument).
For example, `marshal.c` now just checks if the name starts with `#`, I suspect this is
also out-of-date now. You should check if the permanent name is `nil`.
----------------------------------------
Feature #19742: Introduce `Module#anonymous?`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19742#change-106274
* 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/