From: Nathan Smith <nsmith5@...>
Date: 2006-08-25T03:31:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Call functions of superclass

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

> Hi --
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Nathan Smith wrote:
>
> >> I think you're adding an extra level of reference or indirection or
> >> something.  Look at this:
> >>
> >> irb(main):001:0> class C; object_id; end
> >> => 1615634
> >> irb(main):002:0> C.new.class.object_id
> >> => 1615634
> >> irb(main):003:0> C.new.class.superclass.object_id
> >> => 1683084
> >> irb(main):004:0> C.new.class.superclass
> >> => Object
> >> irb(main):005:0> Object.object_id
> >> => 1683084
> >> irb(main):006:0> class << C; object_id; end
> >> => 1615554
> >>
> >> As you can see, the singleton class of C is not the same object as
> >> either C or the class of C.
> >>
> >> ("Singleton class" is the most general term; the Pickaxe uses
> >> "metaclass" to mean singleton class of a Class object.  I tend to just
> >> use "singleton".)
> >
> > I concede your point -- I was using singleton as the object-specific
> > class, while it is the opposite of that. Thanks for the clarification.
> > Maybe now my arguments will make more sense!
>
> It doesn't sound like I clarified it.... :-)  The singleton class *is*
> the object-specific class.  Here's a common idiom that illustrates it:
>
>    class Object
>      def singleton_class
>        class << self
>          self
>        end
>      end
>    end
>
> It sounds like this came out backwards -- ?

Der. OK, I take back my concedation. Let's drop this thing. Requiring way
too much effort to get nowhere.

Nate