From: "Hal E. Fulton" Date: 2003-04-25T01:09:37+09:00 Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [ANN] Ruby.shop ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Pine" To: "ruby-talk ML" Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [ANN] Ruby.shop > However, I agree with Dave; leave out the class and metaclass arrows. > There's only so much you can do with one picture. > > ---------------------------- > I guess this perception can be said to stem from the fact > that classes are objects. If you came from C++ and Java, > as I did, you can see this would seem esoteric. > ---------------------------- > > Yep, it sure is easy when the sets of objects and classes are disjoint! > (Plus, no metaclasses.) In that case, even though the relationships are > still just as different as in Ruby, you can relax about it because everyone > has only one arrow, anyway; what difference the color? I see your point about not confusing the class and superclass relationships. And I never intended to depict metaclass relationships. And yes, the arrow from Object to Class is simply erroneous. But as for arrow color: Is it not worthwhile distinguishing between "X inherits from Y" and "X mixes in Y"? Of course, I already distinguish between modules and classes by putting them on opposite sides of the diagram (and by using different background colors). Thoughts? I don't want to prolong this thread forever, though. :) Hal