Nathan Smith wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, ts wrote:
"N" == Nathan Smith <nsmith5@umbc.edu> writes:
metaclass != singleton class
Well, it's well known : metaclass exist in Smalltalk, singleton class in
ruby. Nothing newThat's great. Thanks for the info
I'm referring to metaclass as stated
in Programming Ruby, not smalltalk.
Does the 2nd edition say that??
Hal
The difference's between Ruby and Smalltalk here are subtle, and
somewhat just terminology.
It depend how you see it. A class is an instance of the Metaclass
(i.e. the class of the class is a metaclass), you can't say the same for a
singleton class.
Any object can have a singleton class.
To explain the parallel hierachy between the classes and the metaclasses,
you must speak about the compatibility problem.
In ruby you just need to say that a class is an object.
Guy Decoux
Rather than making rash statements such as that, it'd be nice of you to
successfully debunk my arguments. Keep trying, I have faith in you.
Nate
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, ts wrote:
> That's great. Thanks for the info
> in Programming Ruby, not smalltalk.Re read carefully "Programming Ruby", it was written by someone which know
ruby better than you ...
Does the 2nd edition say that??
Well the 2nd edition speak about the metaclass and there is a paragraph in
page 382 to explain the use of the term metaclass in the book.
--
Guy Decoux
Yes AFAIK I was referring to the 2nd edition (don't have the book in front of me now.)
Nate
On Aug 24, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Hal Fulton wrote:
Nathan Smith wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, ts wrote:
> metaclass != singleton class
Well, it's well known : metaclass exist in Smalltalk, singleton class in
ruby. Nothing newThat's great. Thanks for the info
in Programming Ruby, not smalltalk.Does the 2nd edition say that??
Nathan Smith wrote:
"N" == Nathan Smith <nsmith5@umbc.edu> writes:
That's great. Thanks for the info
in Programming Ruby, not smalltalk.Re read carefully "Programming Ruby", it was written by someone which know
ruby better than you ...Rather than making rash statements such as that, it'd be nice of you to
successfully debunk my arguments. Keep trying, I have faith in you.
Be careful... Guy is one of the very smartest people
in this newsgroup. Probably in the top three. And no, I
don't place myself near the top.
But his English is his weak spot. It's pretty good, but
he is much more fluent in Ruby.
So, much of his conciseness is just hesitancy with English
I think.
Hal
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, ts wrote:
