Kent Dahl wrote:
....
> So unless "class M::C" and friends is just meant to be syntactic sugar, 
> (phoey!) this might help us create cleaner code, IMHO. I wouldn't write 
> it off as a bug just yet.
> 
 > I can't help thinking that it might be a feature, not a bug.

Agreed!

 >
 > Class and module provide namespaces. In the old style, we could not help
 > but opening all the layers of modules (and thusly their namespaces) when
 > defining a class within them.
 >
 > With the new style, we get a cleaner, neater and minimalistic namespace,
 > where we can include those namespaces we want. (With the exception of
 > nested classes, but a work-around for that only requires a little
 > refactoring).
 >
 > So unless "class M::C" and friends is just meant to be syntactic sugar,
 > (phoey!) this might help us create cleaner code, IMHO. I wouldn't write
 > it off as a bug just yet.

The curren new (scoping) rule is simple and straight forward. I am afraid
that a ``resolution's of this bug would complicate things without gaining
much (besides violating the POLS of people growing up with C,Java, etc.
style scoping rules - but Ruby has luckily always done this!)

/Christoph