From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-04-22T09:39:24+09:00
Subject: Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)

--927295978-1359041401-1114130344=:12785
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="927295978-1359041401-1114130344=:12785"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--927295978-1359041401-1114130344=:12785
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

Hi --

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Florian Gro=DF wrote:

> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>
>> |Maybe there should be singleton modules instead of singleton
>> |classes....  (That would also solve the problem of "singleton class"
>> |having two meanings.)
>>=20
>> I'm not sure why singleton modules are better than singleton classes.
>
> Hm, Modules can not be instantiated (so it would be one less special case=
)=20
> and the ability of including modules in other objects might be nice.

I like your first point (that was part of what I was thinking too).
But if you include a module in other objects, then it isn't a
singleton module -- it's just a module.  It would have to be only
available to the one object.  (Assuming I understood your second point
correctly...?)

One advantage of "singleton module" would also be that the whole
"instance_of?" question would disappear.  *Nothing* is an instance of
a module, so there would be no issue.


David

--=20
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
--927295978-1359041401-1114130344=:12785--
--927295978-1359041401-1114130344=:12785--