Issue #19742 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria).
@janosch-x agreed, in Zeitwerk I do my best at [reaching the original
`Module#name`](https://github.com/fxn/zeitwerk/blob/main/lib/zeitwerk/real_mod_name.rb)
because of that.
@ioquatix yeah, I understand your point of view. However, we disagree due to two reasons:
The first one is that Ruby docs (today) agree with my definition: If a module is
anonymous, then its name is `nil`. If `mod.anonymous?` returned true and `mod.name` was
not `nil`, we'd violate existing Ruby semantics.
The second one is more conceptual: once a name is set, its relationship with storage in
the Ruby model is non-existent. You cannot assume or expect anything, because Ruby
semantics decouple names and storage. A name, to me, is a string that was once set
according to some rules. From then on, it is a mere string. So, I believe trying to mix
"anonymous" in between name and storage does not go in the right direction,
`reachable_from_its_name?` would be more aligned (not a proposal, just to illustrate my
point).
----------------------------------------
Feature #19742: Introduce `Module#anonymous?`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19742#change-103654
* 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/