[ruby-talk:16828] Re: rb_define_class() vs Class.new()

> >>>>> "K" == Kero van Gelder <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> K> So, even though what I wanted is possible, isn't one of the ideas of
> K> Ruby to allow you to write what you want consisely?
> 
> K>   Class.new(name)
> 
> K> would be very short and very clear, if you ask me (name being a string
> K> or a symbol, not sure whether both should be allowed).
> 
> pigeon% ruby -e 'A = Class.new(Object); p A.name ; p A.type'
> "A"
> Class

That's the unexpected feature, all right.
Dave calls it cheating.
I'll do some thorough thinking to determine whether I like or hate this.

irb> a = Class.new()
#<Class 0lx4026b178>
irb> x = a.new()
#<#<Class 0lx4026b178>:0x40269058>
irb> B = a
B
irb> x
#<B:0x40269058>
irb> A = a
B

Like, I already saw that classes only provide the methods and
inheritance of methods, not any fields. Apparently this includes the
name...

I was thinking of implementing some debug() that prints depending on
(run-time) configurable Class and Module names... Seems a bit
futile, now...

Bye,
Kero.

PS: executing
  pigeon% b.rb 1
gives me
  ""
  "AB"
with ruby 1.7.1 (cvs 12 June) to add even more complexity :-P

+--- Kero ------------------------------ [e-mail] ---+
|  Don't split your mentality without thinking twice       |
|                          Proud like a God -- Guano Apes  |
+--- M38c ------------------ http://huizen.dds.nl/~kero ---+