Issue #19742 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria).
Yeah, we do not see it the same way.
Anonymous to me means you don't have a name. If the module has a name, done, it is not
anonymous.
If you have a _temporary_ name, in particular you have a name.
To be honest, I would leave modules anonymous until they are assigned to a constant in a
non-anonymous module. That is, I'd only have two states, anonymous, and
non-anonymous:
```ruby
m = Module.new
m.name # => nil
m::C = Class.new
m::C.name # => nil, in my ideal design, not real
A::B = m::C
m::C.name # => "A::B", this does work this way
```
but this cannot be changed even if we agreed, only sharing for the discussion :).
----------------------------------------
Feature #19742: Introduce `Module#anonymous?`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19742#change-103651
* 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/