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
>
>