From: Asfand Yar Qazi <im_not_giving_it_here@..._hate_spam.com>
Date: 2003-12-01T23:32:06+09:00
Subject: Re: class << x

Greg McIntyre wrote:
> "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@mail.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 02:55:09PM +1100, Greg McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>>I didn't ask what it does. I understand perfectly what "class << x"
>>>does and how it works and all about anonymous classes. 
>>
>>I apologize; I was only trying to help, not impugn your knowledge,
>>And the reading "open x's class for modification" didn't sound like
>>you understood it, since "class << x" *doesn't* modify x's class, but
>>rather creates a new subclass just for x.
>>
>>
>>>What I asked was, why is the syntax "class << x"? Is there a reason?
>>>Why "class << x"?
>>
>>It's designed to suggest that something very similar to
>>"class X < Y" (which defines a new class X as a subclass of Y)
>>is going on.  The main differences are:
>>
>>	1. the new class has no name (so there's nothing on the left of
>>	   the <<) 
>>
>>	2. the object on the right is not used directly as the
>>	superclass,
>>	   even if it happens to be a class object; rather, its class
>>	   is used.
>>
>>	2. that object is modified such that it becomes an instance of
>>	   the new class (whereas class X < Y doesn't modify Y at all).
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I was very curt. Thanks for spending time to answer me fully.
> That's something I love about ruby-talk and I'd hate to be unthankful of
> it.

I learnt from it.  So it was good!



--
http://www.it-is-truth.org/