From: Ara.T.Howard@...
Date: 2005-05-17T07:40:31+09:00
Subject: Re: infinite number of singleton_classes

On Tue, 17 May 2005, ES wrote:

> Er, I think I was too curt. I meant to say, "No, we do not necessarily have
> Shirt::Pocket is-a Pants::Pocket, _that_ would imply Shirt::Pocket <
> Pants::Pocket. However..." I was agreeing with you on that point but
> disagreeing later :)

ah - i'm on board now.

>> is in thinking that singleton_class 'isa' foo.  that is simply not the case.
>> rather 'singleton_class' is owned by foo.  in otherwords foo 'has-a'
>> singleton_class and their is no parent child relationship between the two.
>
> Hm, that is a good point, and may well be a common confusion.

it confused me! ;-)

> Agreed! Words fail me again; the 'are' should have been 'were' to signal a
> hypothetical.

o.k. - we're on a roll!

> I are both think we uncommunicating miswell.

who?  what?  where?

> Yes, I generally agree with what you are saying, definitely. My objection
> was merely to you (to me) not describing the 'common lineage' of the two
> singletons/pouches correctly, rather than the entire explanation. I was not
> clear about this, sorry.

no problem.  i had to really struggle to figure all this out for my traits.rb
lib and am still looking for any opportunity to refine my understanding -
which was the entire motivation for the long post : i'm trying to make
__sure__ i know what i think i know.

ciao.

-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
===============================================================================