On Oct 10, 8:48 ¨Âí¬ ÐåôåÐë ¼ðåô®®®Àìéöéîç÷ïòë®ãïí÷òïôåº
> Thanks - actually it does answer the question, but it also answers that
> I have to wait until Ruby 1.9 for the "fix"
>
> that is unless there is a workaround way (until 1.9) to
>
> doInConstanScopeOf [Module] do
> # so instead of 'Module::CONST' one can do 'CONST'
> end
>
> so one could do
>
> def doIt(&block)
> doInConstanScopeOf AModule &block
> end
>
> and explicitly define the constant scope to be the scope of "self.class"
>
> so when will the fabled 1.9 be available :)
>
>
>
>
>
> Florian Gilcher wrote:
> > This is a bit of a strange problem. Ruby 1.8 resolves constants
> > lexically.
>
> > So you are actually referring to ::CONST there.
>
> > In Ruby 1.9, this is different. In Ruby 1.9, Constants are resolved by
> > self .
> > So, in short:
>
> >  ¨Âìáóó > >  ¨Âïäõì> >  ¨Âîä
> >  ¨Âîä
>
> >  ¨Â®îå÷®éîóôáîãåßåöáì äï
> >  ¨Â
> >  ¨Âîä
>
> > crashes in 1.8, but resolves B as A::B in 1.9. Some people hate that
> > change
> > in behaviour, I like it.
>
> > It doesn't directly answer your question, but I hope it gives you
> > enough insight to find a way to do what you want.
>
> > Regards,
> > Florian
>
> > On Oct 10, 2009, at 12:14 AM, Peter Pk wrote:
>
> >> <br>
> >> instance of a class that defines the constant or subclass of it or > >> "const_missing"
>
> >> This so it can be like Java to get "this.CONST"
> >> --
> >> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
> > --
> > Florian Gilcher
>
> > smtp: f... / andersground.net
> > jabber: Sk... / jabber.ccc.de
> > gpg: 33148E2
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.

well in Ruby 1.8 something like this works (obviously not it all
cases, but you get the gist and can fix it as needed):

Obj.new { puts "CONST = #{self.class.const_get("CONST")}" }

And what do you mean by "waiting" until Ruby 1.9? 1.9.1's been
released and stable for the better part of this year now.