From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2006-02-03T01:18:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Class vs. Object

James Herdman wrote:
> Here we go again =)  (I fairly sure I've almost got it now)
> 
>> (i)
>>>> Class.superclass
>> => Module
>>>> Class.ancestors
>> => [Class, Module, Object, Kernel]
> 
> Do I understand the Class.ancestors relationship to mean "those
> classes which are implemented by the Class class"? (I had to remind
> myself that Ruby isn't really single inheritance -- it has mixins and
> whatnot) 

Yes, all superclasses and mixed in modules (see example below).

> e.g.
> 
> String.ancestors
> => [String, Enumerable, Comparable, Object, Kernal]
> 
> Do I understand Class.superclass to mean the class *directly*
> subclassed to form said class?

Exactly.  And ancestors includes also modules:

>> module Mix;end
=> nil
>> class Base;end
=> nil
>> class Sub < Base
>> include Mix
>> end
=> Sub
>> Sub.ancestors
=> [Sub, Mix, Base, Object, Kernel]
>> Sub.superclass
=> Base


Kind regards

    robert