From: Lionel Thiry <lthiryidontwantspam@...>
Date: 2005-05-16T22:30:30+09:00
Subject: Re: infinite number of singleton_classes

Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov a �crit :
> 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.
> 

When I wrote my initial post, I suppose I took for granted that this was
evident, given the so many discussions about singleton class. And I also took
for granted that if one couldn't grasp my position in the first place, he would
be nice enough to ask me to elaborate. ;)

Cheers.

-- 
Lionel Thiry

Personal website: http://users.skynet.be/lthiry/