From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2005-04-24T12:06:42+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly

---1077017559-2078930741-1114311982=:17345
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1077017559-2078930741-1114311982=:17345"

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

---1077017559-2078930741-1114311982=:17345
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE


On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, David A. Black wrote:

> I'm uneasy with the explanation that "instance_of? doesn't take into=20
> account singleton classes", because, as I read it, it seemed to suggest=
=20
> that what instance_of? returns is irrelevant to the question of whether=
=20
> or not something is an instance of something else.  I'd rather trust the=
=20
> method; otherwise, I don't know where to start or stop second-guessing=20
> the meta-information that Ruby gives me.

I'd call it a bug.

If anyone says that there's no bug in the code of instance_of?,=20
preemptively let me answer that, in that case, the bug is in the naming of=
=20
the method.

Quoting an oft-quoted quote (but which would deserve to be quoted much=20
more often in many more situations):

"You keep using that word.
  I do not think it means
  what you think it means."
-- Inigo Montoya (in the movie "The Princess Bride")

  ,-o---------o---------o---------o-. ,----.                            |
  | The Diagram is the Program (TM) | |  ,-o----------------------------o-.
  `-o-----------------------------o-' |  | Mathieu Bouchard (Montr=E9al QC)=
 |
    |                             |---'  |      http://artengine.ca/matju |
    |                             |      `-o------------------------------'
---1077017559-2078930741-1114311982=:17345--
---1077017559-2078930741-1114311982=:17345--