From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2006-08-01T14:13:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval?

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Matt Todd wrote:

> Yes, absolutely. However, if everything is an object (including a 
> Module), then that means a Module also has a class?

Each module and each class have a class which are all subclasses of the 
Class class. It's as in the Object/Class loop in Java and Smalltalk except 
that in Ruby it's the trinity Object/Module/Class... [just like a certain 
tritheistic concept that was grafted onto the Christian religion(s) by the 
Council of Nicaea some 300 years after the fact.]

> if it has a class and isn't a class...

Whether a module is a class is a lexicographic matter: it's a class in the 
ruby sense of the word "class", but it's a class by pretty much any other 
language's standards. This is the very device that conceals Ruby's support 
for multiple inheritance.

> But, also, wouldn't Module.new be something different than Module 
> itself? I mean, sure, an instance of a Module isn't a class, but if I'm 
> wrong about having and being a class, then there is a distinction 
> between the instance and the class... thing.

Yes. Those relationships are well-documented in the Pickaxe 1 (I don't 
have Pickaxe 2 so I can't tell). They are also surely well documented in 
the manuals of some other languages (just without the Module/Class 
distinction).

In my opinion, the difficulty in learning those relationships is caused by 
pathological usage of metonymy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy), 
like confusing an object and the class of that object. For example, if i 
say that Potato responds to "blah", am I talking about the instances of 
Potato or about the Potato class itself?

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tel:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
| Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montreal QC Canada