Issue #19742 has been updated by janosch-x (Janosch Müller).
fxn (Xavier Noria) wrote in #note-17:
def self.name [...] I think overriding such a core
method for an attribute that is out of reach, managed internally by Ruby, is questionable
[...] Can people override `Array#size` to return 7? Yes, they can.
The problem with `name` is that it is a common, uh, name. It is also not as obvious that
it is a part of the core as with `Array#size`.
Coincidental overrides like
[
these](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Afaker-ruby%2Ffaker%20name&typ… are
probably somewhat common.
----------------------------------------
Feature #19742: Introduce `Module#anonymous?`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19742#change-103653
* 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/