From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-05-16T10:26:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Bug printing classes - Re: infinite number of singleton_classes

Hi --

On Mon, 16 May 2005, Christoph wrote:

> David A. Black schrieb:
>
>> :
>> 
>> Having a subclass able to call its superclass's singleton (class)
>> methods is, as far as I know, the only case where one object can call
>> another's singleton methods.  This arrangement seems to disappear in
>> the case of singleton classes of singleton classes... but at least it
>> disappears consistently (i.e., even in the case of "Klass" above).
>
> It also works if the subclass is an ordinary singleton class of an
> instance of the superclass.
>
>> Or something.  In practical terms there's probably not much mileage to
>> be had out of these.
>
> True - but when there is very little mileage why not simply disallow them in
> the first place.

I'm just not ready for:

   class << obj; def self.x; end; end

to throw an error.  It just seems like taking away too much
class-ness -- though obviously if the class interface to object
singleton behavior disappears entirely, that won't be an issue.

> As a side note the class Klass lends itself naturally as the mother of all
> singleton classes - i.e. "pouch == Klass" - a problem with this idea is that
> we currently have Class <  Module < Object.

I'm not sure what you mean.  If every object's "pouch" is Klass, it
will get very crowded....  But I think I'm misunderstanding.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net