From: "David A. Black" Date: 2005-05-05T01:46:22+09:00 Subject: Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass? Hi -- On Thu, 5 May 2005, Mark Hubbart wrote: > On 5/4/05, Jim Weirich wrote: >> >> David A. Black said: >>>> i believe the implementaion is correct iff the following statement is >>>> true: >>>> >>>> all meta-classes descend from the meta-class of Object. >>> >>> I fear the terminology issue raises its head here. Is there any >>> reason not to use the customary "singleton class", pending some >>> pronouncement from Matz that it's no longer the right term? >> >> There is a distinction, although some people blur it. Those things that >> are almost metaclasses (but aren't because Ruby doesn't have metaclasses) >> are a subset of all singleton classes. As noted, these almost-metaclasses >> inherit from the almost-metaclass of Object. These almost-metaclasses are >> the singleton classes of Class objects. >> >> All almost-metaclasses are singleton classes. Not all singleton classes >> are almost-metaclasses. > > All the more reason to give them a different name... At this point, I > care very little what they're called; virtual class, idioclass, own > class, whatever. Just give us a nice, non-overlapping name to call > them by. I guess singleton class will have to do until then, though... Actually one would not want a completely separate name, for the reason that the almost-metaclasses really are singleton classes. Anything generated by: class << self; self; end is a singleton class. If 'self' is a Class object, then the resulting singleton class is also an almost-metaclass (parametaclass?!). But it doesn't cease to be a singleton class. David -- David A. Black dblack@wobblini.net