Issue #16910 has been updated by fxn (Xavier Noria).


Ah, forgot to add that I saw this

```ruby
BasicObject.constants # => [:BasicObject]
```

Could it be the case that `BasicObject` is special-cased somehow? If so, where in the source code?

----------------------------------------
Misc #16910: BasicObject is resolved in BasicObject
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16910#change-85775

* Author: fxn (Xavier Noria)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
I categorized this as Misc because I do not really know if this is a bug, or perhaps I miss some special rule in the resolution of relative constants.

Basically, I would expect

```ruby
class C < BasicObject
  BasicObject
end
```

or, even simpler,

```ruby
class BasicObject
  BasicObject
end
```


to raise `NameError`.

Reason would be that top-level constants are stored in `Object`, which is not among the ancestors in any of the two examples above.

Is my reasoning flawed or is it a bug? If flawed, which is the correct reasoning?



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>