(2012/11/27 9:02), SASADA Koichi wrote:
> (2012/09/23 15:43), sam.saffron (Sam Saffron) wrote:
>> Also it feels very tied to MRI returning RubyVM:::Backtrace::Location , Location seems to me in the wrong namespace. Is JRuby and Rubinius going to be expected to add this namespace? Is this going to be spec? 
> 
> I want to discuss about this issue.
> I agree that it is not CRuby specific feature
> and RubyVM namespace is not good.
> 
> Background:
> 
> (0) Now, caller_locations returns array of
>     ::RubyVM::Backtrace::Location objects.
> 
> (1) I don't care about class name of objects
>     what caller_locations returns.
> 
> (2) ::Backtrace::Location seems good name.
>     But I'm not sure that ::Backtrace is common class or module name.
>     I'm afraid naming conflict.
> 
> Ideas:
> 
> (a) Don't care about conflict.
>     Rename to ::Backtrace::Location.
> 
> (b) Don't touch any more.
>     CRuby returns `::RubyVM::Backtrace::Location'.
>     But make it not spec.
>     Spec is "This object should respond to several
>     methods which ::RubyVM::Backtrace::Location has".
> 
> (c) Other names.
>     Such as `::BacktraceLocation'.
>     Ah, this is good name because it is long
>     and maybe no conflict with existing code  (I googled it), isn't it?
> 
> I think (c) seems good now.

(d) ::Thread::Backtrace and ::Thread::Backtrace::Location

I decided to use this name.
* Backtrace belong to each threads.
* More common than ::RubyVM
* I believe existing programs may not use ::Thread namespace

-- 
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net