I would probably be ok with mod.modules.last.name to be honest. Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325 On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Thomas Sawyer <transfire / gmail.com> wrote: > > Issue #5628 has been updated by Thomas Sawyer. > > > You're right. File is also Module (subclass of Class). So, yes, another > name is needed, or ::File.basename accepted as an exception. > > In my defense, I always thought File class methods for file handling were > bad mojo! It would be much better if Pathname were core and File class > methods non-existent (IMHO). > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > Feature #5628: Module#basename > http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/5628 > > Author: Thomas Sawyer > Status: Open > Priority: Normal > Assignee: > Category: > Target version: 1.9.4 > > > Something I use fairly often: > > some_module.name.split("::").last > > It's useful for things like factory methods. It would be much nicer if we > had: > > class Module > def basename > name.split("::").last > end > end > > > > > -- > http://redmine.ruby-lang.org > >