From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-04-22T09:44:39+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 09:32:08 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
>
> |> 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.
>
> Yep, singleton class is a long lived object under the current
> implementation.  The temporal class-like object can reduce number of
> live objects.  Note that I'm not yet sure if it's a good idea or not.
> I just don't want to deny the idea before knowing it's bad.

Maybe the best thing (easy for me to talk about since I don't have to
implement it :-) would be a kind of "class interface" to the object's
singleton methods.  If you did:

    def obj.new_method
    end

no Class would be created.  But if you wanted to do other things, you
could still do:

   class << obj
     include SomeModule
     @var = 1
   end

etc.  "self" in that scope could be a different thing each time (sort
of like Object#method).


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net