From: Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>
Date: 2005-04-04T22:54:43+09:00
Subject: Re: [EVALUATION] - E03 - jamLang Evaluation Case Applied to Ruby

Robert Klemme wrote:
> "Ilias Lazaridis" <ilias@lazaridis.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:d2r96v$c9c$1@usenet.otenet.gr...
[...]

>>I've understood now the problem.
>>
>>-
>>
>>The Ruby Object Model does not contain reflective MetaClasses, which
>>would enable to apply metadata even to methods.
> 
> I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this.  You can indeed access classes
> in Ruby.  So I'd say there *are* MetaClasses.  It's just that there is no
> persistent representation of methods which you could augment with
> additional data.
[...] - (some examples)

ok, there are metaclasses, which are not fully(!) reflective (as already 
showcased due to the missing possiility to recreate the class-definition).

[E.g. Smalltalks object model is fully reflective (classes are instances 
of metaclasses).]

>>A Visual representation of the Relevant Ruby Object Model (e.g. with
>>UML) would be very helpfull to understand this immediately.
> 
> I don't know whether such thing exists, but the concept is usually easy
> grasped IMHO.  Try to play a bit with classes in IRB - that helped me a
> lot.  Note especially methods #class, #ancestors and #superclass.

[I must close this thread here - I've dived already too deep]

One could possibly ask in the developers list.

This documentation should be in a central place on ruby-lang.org.

An language-object-model should be document clearly.

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com