Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 888075
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T13:20:10+00:00 2026-05-15T13:20:10+00:00

I just started out using IronRuby (but the behaviour seems consistent when I tested

  • 0

I just started out using IronRuby (but the behaviour seems consistent when I tested it in plain Ruby) for a DSL in my .NET application – and as part of this I’m defining methods to be called from the DSL via define_method.

However, I’ve run into an issue regarding optional parens when calling methods starting with an uppercase letter.

Given the following program:

class DemoClass
    define_method :test do puts "output from test" end
    define_method :Test do puts "output from Test" end

    def run
        puts "Calling 'test'"
        test()
        puts "Calling 'test'"
        test
        puts "Calling 'Test()'"
        Test()
        puts "Calling 'Test'"
        Test
    end
end

demo = DemoClass.new
demo.run

Running this code in a console (using plain ruby) yields the following output:

ruby .\test.rb
Calling 'test'
output from test
Calling 'test'
output from test
Calling 'Test()'
output from Test
Calling 'Test'
./test.rb:13:in `run': uninitialized constant DemoClass::Test (NameError)
    from ./test.rb:19:in `<main>'

I realize that the Ruby convention is that constants start with an uppercase letter and that the general naming convention for methods in Ruby is lowercase. But the parens are really killing my DSL syntax at the moment.

Is there any way around this issue?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T13:20:11+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 1:20 pm

    This is just part of Ruby’s ambiguity resolution.

    In Ruby, methods and variables live in different namespaces, therefore there can be methods and variables (or constants) with the same name. This means that, when using them, there needs to be some way to distinguish them. In general, that’s not a problem: messages have receivers, variables don’t. Messages have arguments, variables don’t. Variables are assigned to, messages aren’t.

    The only problem is when you have no receiver, no argument and no assignment. Then, Ruby cannot tell the difference between a receiverless message send without arguments and a variable. So, it has to make up some arbitrary rules, and those rules are basically:

    • for an ambiguous token starting with a lowercase letter, prefer to interpret it as a message send, unless you positively know it is a variable (i.e. the parser (not(!) the interpreter) has seen an assignment before)
    • for an ambiguous token starting with an uppercase letter, prefer to interpret it as a constant

    Note that for a message send with arguments (even if the argument list is empty), there is no ambiguity, which is why your third example works.

    • test(): obviously a message send, no ambiguity here
    • test: might be a message send or a variable; resolution rules say it is a message send
    • Test(): obviously a message send, no ambiguity here
    • self.Test: also obviously a message send, no ambiguity here
    • Test: might be a message send or a constant; resolution rules say it is a constant

    Note that those rules are a little bit subtle, for example here:

    if false
      foo = 'This will never get executed'
    end
    
    foo # still this will get interpreted as a variable
    

    The rules say that whether an ambiguous token gets interpreted as a variable or a message send is determined by the parser and not the interpreter. So, because the parser has seen foo = whatever, it tags foo as a variable, even though the code will never get executed and foo will evaluate to nil as all uninitialized variables in Ruby do.

    TL;DR summary: you’re SOL.

    What you could do is override const_missing to translate into a message send. Something like this:

    class DemoClass
      def test; puts "output from test" end
      def Test; puts "output from Test" end
    
      def run
        puts "Calling 'test'"
        test()
        puts "Calling 'test'"
        test
        puts "Calling 'Test()'"
        Test()
        puts "Calling 'Test'"
        Test
      end
    
      def self.const_missing(const)
        send const.downcase
      end
    end
    
    demo = DemoClass.new
    demo.run
    

    Except this obviously won’t work, since const_missing is defined on DemoClass and thus, when const_missing is run, self is DemoClass which means that it tries to call DemoClass.test when it should be calling DemoClass#test via demo.test.

    I don’t know how to easily solve this.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 440k
  • Answers 440k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer I think you're better placed to use SQL Profiler to… May 15, 2026 at 5:12 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer I've successfully install Retrospectiva using Robert Heim's guide. May 15, 2026 at 5:12 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Bind<HttpContextBase>().ToMethod(context => new HttpContextWrapper(HttpContext.Current)); May 15, 2026 at 5:11 pm

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.