Surprisingly, all 10 answers here say the same thing. The '::' is a namespace resolution operator, and yes it is true. But there is one gotcha that you have to realize about the namespace resolution operator when it comes to the constant lookup algorithm. As Matz delineates in his book, 'The Ruby Programming Language', constant lookup has multiple steps. First, it searches a constant in the lexical scope where the constant is referenced. If it does not find the constant within the lexical scope, it then searches the inheritance hierarchy. Because of this constant lookup algorithm, below we get the expected results:
module A
module B
PI = 3.14
module C
class E
PI = 3.15
end
class F < E
def get_pi
puts PI
end
end
end
end
end
f = A::B::C::F.new
f.get_pi
> 3.14
While F inherits from E, the B module is within the lexical scope of F. Consequently, F instances will refer to the constant PI defined in the module B. Now if module B did not define PI, then F instances will refer to the PI constant defined in the superclass E.
But what if we were to use '::' rather than nesting modules? Would we get the same result? No!
By using the namespace resolution operator when defining nested modules, the nested modules and classes are no longer within the lexical scope of their outer modules. As you can see below, PI defined in A::B is not in the lexical scope of A::B::C::D and thus we get uninitialized constant when trying to refer to PI in the get_pi instance method:
module A
end
module A::B
PI = 3.14
end
module A::B::C
class D
def get_pi
puts PI
end
end
end
d = A::B::C::D.new
d.get_pi
NameError: uninitialized constant A::B::C::D::PI
Did you mean? A::B::PI