From: Martin DeMello <martindemello@...>
Date: 2005-04-19T21:59:34+09:00
Subject: Re: [EVALUATION] - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised   Documentation)

Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
> 
> please, the context of the discussion is already given:
> 
> I've stated, that the _specific_ and _given_ (described within "ri 
> Class") "(Object)" metaclass  is not existent.
> 
> launch irb.
> 
> "Object" is accessible.
> 
> please name me the "(Object)" class.
> 
> you cannot:
> 
> it's not existent.

Ruby supports the concept of anonymous but reachable objects.

a = ["Hello", "world"]

The two strings in the array have no name other than a[0] and a[1], but
they certainly exist.

a.each {|i| puts i}

The block passed to a.each has no name at all, but it too exists.

Also, the ruby community recognises the value of documentation-level
abstractions and conventions.

String#reverse is not ruby syntax, but shorthand for "the instance
method 'reverse' of objects of class String", and it's a valuable and
widely understood convention in the documentation. Likewise, (Object) is
not ruby syntax, but shorthand for "the singleton class of the class
object Object", and is likewise valuable (try redrawing the diagram
using the expanded form) and understood.

martin