From: Ara.T.Howard@...
Date: 2005-05-16T13:40:30+09:00
Subject: Re: infinite number of singleton_classes

On Mon, 16 May 2005, Lionel Thiry wrote:

> Well, I had something in mind when I wrote this... and it was not "Surely no
> one will ever use this feature, then let's remove it". It was something more
> subtle.
>
> I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I remember that Matz expected some
> freedom of implementation of singleton method mechanism. Present mechanism
> is that singleton methods are hold in a singleton class, which happens to be
> an object instance of the class Class. But this may change in future version
> of ruby. For example, singleton "classes" could not be a class anymore, or
> it could even not be a normal object anymore. It could be anything, whatever
> please Matz.

this makes a good bit more sense to me - but think matz would need to comment
to consider further.

kind regards.

-a
-- 
===============================================================================
| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| phone :: 303.497.6469
| renunciation is not getting rid of the things of this world, but accepting
| that they pass away. --aitken roshi
===============================================================================