In Ruby, in a method defined in class << self, why can't a constant defined on the superclass be access without self?

Question

I'm trying to understand Ruby singletons and class inheritance better. I read everywhere that

def self.method_name; end`

is equivalent to

class << self
  def method_name; end
end

But if that were true, then I would expect print_constant_fails to work, but it doesn't. What is going on here?

class SuperExample
  A_CONSTANT = "super example constant"
end

class SubExample < SuperExample
  def self.print_constant_works_1
    puts A_CONSTANT
  end
  class << self
    def print_constant_works_2
      puts self::A_CONSTANT
    end
    def print_constant_fails
      puts A_CONSTANT
    end
  end
end

pry(main)> SubExample.print_constant_works_1
super example constant

pry(main)> SubExample.print_constant_works_2
super example constant

pry(main)> SubExample.print_constant_fails
NameError: uninitialized constant #<Class:SubExample>::A_CONSTANT
from (pry):13:in `print_constant_fails'

Answer 1

You have encountered a common Ruby gotcha - constant lookup.

The most important concept in constant lookup is Module.nesting (unlike in method lookup, where the primary starting point is self). This method gives you the current module nesting which is directly used by the Ruby interpreter when resolving the constant token. The only way to modify the nesting is to use keywords class and module and it only includes modules and classes for which you used that keyword:

class A
  Module.nesting #=> [A]

  class B
    Module.nesting #=> [A::B, A]
  end
end

class A::B
  Module.nesting #=> [A::B] sic! no A
end

In meta programming, a module or class can be defined dynamically using Class.new or Module.new - this does not affect nesting and is an extremely common cause of bugs (ah, also worth mentioning - constants are defined on the first module of Module.nesting):

module A
  B = Class.new do
    VALUE = 1
  end

  C = Class.new do
    VALUE = 2
  end
end

A::B::VALUE #=> uninitialized constant A::B::VALUE
A::VALUE #=> 2

The above code will generate two warnings: one for double initialization of constant A::VALUE and a second for reassigning the constant.

If it looks like "I'd never do that" - this also applies to all the constants defined within RSpec.describe (which internally calls Class.new), so if you define a constant within your rspec tests, they are most certainly global (unless you explicitly stated the module it is to be defined in with self::)

Now let's get back to your code:

class SubExample < SuperExample
  puts Module.nesting.inspect #=> [SubExample]

  class << self
    puts Module.nesting.inspect #=> [#<Class:SubExample>, SubExample]
  end
end

When resolving the constant, the interpreter first iterates over all the modules in Module.nesting and searches this constant within that module. So if nesting is [A::B, A] and we're looking for the constant with token C, the interpreter will look for A::B::C first and then A::C.

However, in your example, that will fail in both cases :). Then the interpreter starts searching ancestors of the first (and only first) module in Module.nesting. SubrExample.singleton_class.ancestors gives you:

[
  #<Class:SubExample>,
  #<Class:SuperExample>,
  #<Class:Object>,
  #<Class:BasicObject>,
  Class,
  Module,
  Object,
  Kernel,
  BasicObject
]

As you can see - there is no SuperExample module, only its singleton class - which is why constant lookup within class << self fails (print_constant_fails).

The ancestors of Subclass are:

[
  SubExample,
  SuperExample,
  Object,
  Kernel,
  BasicObject
]

We have SuperExample there, so the interpreter will manage to find SuperExample::A_CONSTANT within this nesting.

We're left with print_constant_works_2. This is an instance method on a singleton class, so self within this method is just SubExample. So, we're looking for SubExample::A_CONSTANT - constant lookup firstly searches on SubExample and, when that fails, on all its ancestors, including SuperExample.

Answer 2

It has to do with scope. When you are inside class << self, the scope is different than when you are inside class Something. Thus, inside class << self there is actually no constant called A_CONSTANT.