From: John Mair <jrmair@...>
Date: 2010-10-23T00:07:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Why is top-level an object rather than just Object?

But, for most cases main already behaves like Object:

* calling 'include' in main actually includes in Object
* defining a method in main actually defines the method on Object
* defining a constant in main actually defines the constant on Object

The only notable exception, where 'main' acts like itself (that is - as 
an instance of Object) -- is instance variables. main has its own 
instance variables independent of Object.

But i do not see a good reason not to just define the ivars on Object.

See this post: 
http://banisterfiend.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/what-is-the-ruby-top-level/

John

Robert Dober wrote in post #956321:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM, John Mair <jrmair@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why is it that top-level isn't just the Object class itself? what's the
>> rationale behind the 'main' object?
>
> Well the Object object, happening to be a module too (read class if
> you prefer), is the parent of all ( almost all in Ruby 1.9) instances
> in a Ruby program. For me it seems quite a good choice to
> use an instance of Obejct to represent the top most "self" in a Ruby
> program.
> It might be an instance of a special class like Toplevel (being a
> singleton presumably), I would prefer that, but the actual approach is
> a pragmatic one that is quite ok.
>
> Now talking about your idea of main == Object I fail to see what that
> should be good for. It is surely not the role of the (almost in Ruby
> 1.9) most general class in Ruby to carry the responsabilities of main.
>
> Cheers
> R

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