From: Christoph <chr_mail@...>
Date: 2005-05-16T10:46:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Bug printing classes - Re: infinite number of singleton_classes

David A. Black schrieb:

>
> 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.

I was kind of proposing to throw an error at the next level

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

Disallowing the formation of  the "singleton singleton class" of
any type of class including "singleton classes" - this would
effectively kill Ara's usage example

>
>> 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.

Singleton classes could be instances of Klass, essentially Klass would 
be a subclass
and "singleton class" of Class at the same time. This is similar (kind 
of the higher order
version of) of Matju's  proposed identification.
 
class << Object; self end == Class


/Christoph