From: Jim Weirich <jim@...>
Date: 2006-04-02T12:30:01+09:00
Subject: Re: (Static) Constructors/Destructors in Ruby

Primary Key wrote:
> Jim Weirich wrote:
> 
>>> 2. It can be helpful for meta-programming purposes. My impression is 
>>> most languages try to implement the traditional OO tools on class 
>>> (static) level
>> 
>> I'm not getting statement #2 above.
> 
> Please consider the evolution of the class-level language features:
> 
> 1. C++ - static member variables
> 2. Java - static members and static initialization blocks
> 3. C# - static members and static constructors
> 
> I think there is a clear pattern of implementing more and more of the 
> object-level OO features on class (static) level.

Ok, at least for C-style languages I won't argue the point (although I'm 
not entirely clear what a static constructor is ... other than a factory 
function).

> [...] As far 
> as meta-progamming is concerned the static features will beef up the 
> class level in the object-class-metaclass triad. 

I'm still unclear on how static methods do anything to support 
meta-progarmming.  Perhaps an example might prove illuminating.

--
-- Jim Weirich

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.