From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2008-03-23T03:39:27+09:00
Subject: Re: #meta

On 3/22/08, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
>
>  On Mar 22, 2008, at 06:39 , Robert Klemme wrote:
>  > I am feeling stupid because I seem to overlook something: what is
>  > the advantage of your approach vs.
>  >
>  > class Object
>  >  def meta
>  >    class<<self;self;end
>  >  end
>  > end
>
>
> Your approach mentarbates less, so trans doesn't like it as much.

Along these lines, note Stu Halloway's blog post about the definition
of  Object#metaclass in facets vs. other places and the ensuing
commentary:

http://blog.thinkrelevance.com/2008/2/12/how-should-metaclass-work

I'd seen lots of examples of metaclass being defined the same way as
Robert's proposed meta method above, and had never seen the more
complex implementation in facets until Stu bumped into problems
because use was using facets 'feature' of taking a block.

I totally agree with the consensus in the comments that the simpler
definition is better. I also side with Jim Weirich about the
distinction between metaclass and singleton class or eigenclass or
whatever you want to call them.
-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/