From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-04-22T09:32:08+09:00
Subject: Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)

Hi --

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)"
>    on Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:04:16 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
>
> |x and y would be two class-like objects, instead of one class?  Also,
> |what exactly is a class-like object?
>
> Perhaps.  And the latter question is hard to answer, since it still is
> a vague idea.  I just don't want to deny the possibility of different
> implementation.
>
> |Maybe there should be singleton modules instead of singleton
> |classes....  (That would also solve the problem of "singleton class"
> |having two meanings.)
>
> I'm not sure why singleton modules are better than singleton classes.

I didn't express that thought very clearly.  I was thinking: modules
are already a sort of "class-like" (but non-instantiable) object.  But
it's probably not relevant, since I think what you're talking about is
implementations that avoid the whole container-creation process.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net