> time to close this thread.
Champagne !!!
I think Mick Jagger and David Bowie are almost ready to kick off...
On 4/23/05, Luc Heinrich <lucsky@mac.com> wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
--
Luc Heinrich - lucsky@mac.com
--
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.
Henrik Horneber wrote:
My final questions are basicly:
* Ruby is OO. Why is the sso not directly accessible?You've posted code in this message showing how to access an "sso".
which is an indirection.
My question contains "directly".
[please no more harisplitting]
Strange, first you complain about somebody else not following your
[...] - (even more hairsplitting)
I hope the responsible person has more courage.
..
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
sso = Specializing Singleton Object
ISBO = Instance Specific Behaviour Object
dvto = Dedicated Virtual Table Object
dvco = Dedicated Virtual Class Object
dvc = Dedicated Virtual Class
dsc = dedicated singleton class
sco = singleton class object
asco = attached singleton class object
"singleton instance" = the one and only instance
"singleton method" = a method, exclusively for one instance
"singleton class" = a class, exclusively for one instance
=>
sco = Singleton class object
sc = Singleton class
s = singleton
=> <object>.singleton
=> <object>.singletonClass
obj.class
obj.class_singleton
obj.singleton_class
obj.exclusive_singleton_class
abstracted (not specifying a class):
obj.exclusive_behaviour_carrier
obj.ebc
csaba wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Austin Ziegler wrote:
"meta-classes" is completely false.possibly you believe this one more:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/40537
[snip]
I do not believe that this is just an implementation detail,
as it is exposed to the language for use.what you believe is irrelevant.
reality counts.
and (especially for you) possibly this here:
http://www.ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/40548
Guys, Ilias does have a point.
I have 3 points.
marked as a) b) c) in the original message.
but at this point, nearly no one of this community has an intrest if I have "a point".
Most know: I am right.
But the "weak puppet" species is incapable to admit a failure within 'their' language system.
This is the point where the "spiritual leaders" of the community intervene.
But it looks that they too don't have the courage to admit their failures.
Possibly this is the fault of the community, which treats the designers sometimes like God.
-
Language Designers are humans, not God's.
If we insist on that metaclasses as we have now are just an accidental
implementation of the singleton feature -- and the authoritive one,
Matz seems to do so -- then we can conclude that they cannot be part of
the Ruby object model, where Ruby is an abstract entity, Ruby, as such,
the language.So then I accept that he doesn't accept the "ri Class" diagram. Even if
that's correct if we understood Ruby as its realized by the canonical
implementation today.However, if we decide to mean Ruby as the abstract language, then maybe
it just doesn't make sense to plea for a *class* diagram -- if we ditch
metaclasses, Ruby's OO ceases to be purely class based.
Ruby's OO is not purely class based.
"Everything is an Object" is invalid, too.
Cause if you have objects, accessible via an special notation, which can be "changed in future version", then you have no OO.
It still makes
sense to ask for some kind of figure representing inheritance.I don't know UML, is it capable of representing classless (or not fully
class based) OO?
To my understanding, classless is nothing special.
Just an Object which carries the (dynamic) Class Specification.
You can draw a box, with a stereotyp "classless" or "dynamic".
[a small research should provide the valid standard for this]
If not, then the answer to Ilias' question: "either mean Ruby as the
current implementation defines it, or don't ask for an UML diagram
'cause can't be made one."
The inconsistence starts within the ruby sources.
Concise Terminology is the starting point.
_Clean_ and _transparent_ OO the fundament.
_Respect_ to the analytic individuum the essence of all progress.
-
But it looks I cannot find all this within Ruby.
..
Guys, for real, let's ignore this guy.
Please.
No more responses, just let him be.
On 4/22/05, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> Jonas Hartmann wrote:
>
>>> My final questions are basicly:
>>> * Can I expect an apology for this false documentation?
>>
>> Apology? Read the ruby license again. Hint: you did not buy "ruby".
>
> It's a matter of degnity.dignity.
> Mr. Matsumoto knows what I am talking about.
>
>> My suggestion:
>
> [...] (process)
>
> .
>..
--
Bill Atkins
Sorry, I think I have just core dumped with laughter at this thread.
Here is my one and only post to Ilias (so don't flame me!).
Ilias, when you've developed your own programming language, and have
found the perfection you so dearly crave, give us a call will you? In
the mean time, please don't be rude to Matz. After all, he gives Ruby
to the community freely, be thankful for that. And be thankful to the
friendly people on this list who give their time and patience to
newbies like me. Don't waste any more of their time.
Other than that, I'm with Nikolai :o)))
On 4/22/05, Lyndon Samson <lyndon.samson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/23/05, Luc Heinrich <lucsky@mac.com> wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
> > time to close this thread.
>
> Champagne !!!
>I think Mick Jagger and David Bowie are almost ready to kick off...
> --
> Luc Heinrich - lucsky@mac.com
>
>--
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.
--
All the best
Glenn
Aylesbury, UK
[...] - (even more hairsplitting)
I hope the responsible person has more courage.
Since you are no longer contributing to this thread, and have been
given the answers you requested. This thread is closed, please
refrain from posting further in it.
[thread closed]
--
===Tanner Burson===
tanner.burson@gmail.com
http://tannerburson.com <---Might even work one day...
Hi,
I hope the responsible person has more courage.
I may be the responsible person.
I assume your question is why there's no method to obtain singleton
class (per object hidden class), right? That's because I see no real
"need" for it.
Besides seeing no real need, such method is highly connected to the
current implementation. Future Ruby (or different implementation of
Ruby interpreter) may want to choose other strategy, for example,
creating a temporary class-like object to manipulate singleton
methods, then update internal object structure according to that
class-like object. Under the implementation like this, a method to
obtain singleton class has no meaning.
Anyway, for your information, David Alan Black is in the process of
persuading me to add such a method.
matz.
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:29:31 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> writes:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
But the "weak puppet" species is incapable to admit a failure within
'their' language system.This is the point where the "spiritual leaders" of the community
intervene.
But it looks that they too don't have the courage to admit their
failures.
Possibly this is the fault of the community, which treats the
designers sometimes like God.Language Designers are humans, not God's.
I too was attacked and savagely beaten by a language designer in my youth. I kept it inside for many years and didn't even realize it until it was brought out in hypnotherapy 7 years ago. Sadly by that time the language designer was deceased and I could not confront her. Not that it would have mattered much anyway, she being an Admiral and protected by the military industrial complex. You are far luckier being able to confront the abusive LD amost directly through the internet. I just wanted to let you know that YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Thank you for bravely standing up and sharing. Maybe others like us who have been abused by LD's can finally come out of hiding and get the recognition and support we need. As for how I conquered my codependent behavior and COBOL addiction... NO I didn't just replace it with Ruby...don't be ridiculous. I found Jesus. Well Jesus and Ruby. That may not work for you. But good luck. I'm pulling for you.
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]sso = Specializing Singleton Object
ISBO = Instance Specific Behaviour Object
dvto = Dedicated Virtual Table Object
dvco = Dedicated Virtual Class Object
dvc = Dedicated Virtual Class
dsc = dedicated singleton class
sco = singleton class object
asco = attached singleton class object
"singleton instance" = the one and only instance
"singleton method" = a method, exclusively for one instance
"singleton class" = a class, exclusively for one instance=>
sco = Singleton class object
sc = Singleton class
s = singleton
=> <object>.singleton
=> <object>.singletonClass
obj.class
obj.class_singleton
obj.singleton_classobj.exclusive_singleton_class
abstracted (not specifying a class):
obj.exclusive_behaviour_carrier
obj.ebc
-
obj.exclusive_class
obj.exclass
obj.xclass
x class (x=not known yet what it is)
obj.xclass
..
You misspelled "wrong." "Ignorant" is another good alternate
spelling for the word you meant. As are "asinine", "arrogant", and
even "obstinately, willfully, stupid."
You've been shown -- both practically and theoretically -- why
you're wrong. By almost a dozen people, including the language
designer.
Your pretensions don't change reality.
-austin
On 4/22/05, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
Most know: I am right.
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
Glenn Smith wrote:
Sorry, I think I have just core dumped with laughter at this thread.
Here is my one and only post to Ilias (so don't flame me!).
Ilias, when you've developed your own programming language, and have
found the perfection you so dearly crave, give us a call will you? In
the mean time, please don't be rude to Matz.
He is 'rude'.
To me.
To the community.
To himself.
And most of all: To the name he carries.
After all, he gives Ruby
to the community freely, be thankful for that. And be thankful to the
friendly people on this list who give their time and patience to
newbies like me.
I am thankfull to anyone who provides concise information within the given context.
Don't waste any more of their time.
They waste it themselves.
Other than that, I'm with Nikolai :o)))
..
Crikey, I woke up one morning and ruby-talk was a dictatorship...
On 4/22/05, Tanner Burson <tanner.burson@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] - (even more hairsplitting)
>
> I hope the responsible person has more courage.
>Since you are no longer contributing to this thread, and have been
given the answers you requested. This thread is closed, please
refrain from posting further in it.
--
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
>I hope the responsible person has more courage.
I may be the responsible person.
"may be" is not an answer that I would expect from an PL designer.
I assume your question is why there's no method to obtain singleton
class (per object hidden class), right?
You find my 3 questions within the original message of this thread.
Could you please have the courtesy to reply there?
That's because I see no real "need" for it.
I see.
Besides seeing no real need, such method is highly connected to the
current implementation. Future Ruby (or different implementation of
Ruby interpreter) may want to choose other strategy, for example,
creating a temporary class-like object to manipulate singleton
methods, then update internal object structure according to that
class-like object. Under the implementation like this, a method to
obtain singleton class has no meaning.
There's something that irritates me with all this.
But I'm not sure what.
Anyway, for your information, David Alan Black is in the process of
persuading me to add such a method.
I don't know "David Alan Black".
But: not he should 'pursuade' you to add such a method.
Rationality should do.
matz.
..
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" > on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:29:31 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> writes:
I wonder how JRuby implements it? Any takers for a code-walk?
On 4/22/05, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Besides seeing no real need, such method is highly connected to the
current implementation. Future Ruby (or different implementation of
--
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.
[Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>, 2005-04-21 17.46 CEST]
Besides seeing no real need, such method is highly connected to the
current implementation. Future Ruby (or different implementation of
Ruby interpreter) may want to choose other strategy, for example,
creating a temporary class-like object to manipulate singleton
methods, then update internal object structure according to that
class-like object. Under the implementation like this, a method to
obtain singleton class has no meaning.
I think, in a 90% the singleton class is used for:
* define methods for the object
* attr
* private
* alias_method
* undef and undef_method
Maybe if you provide a way to do the last four from inside instance_eval,
people would forget the singleton class...
Hi --
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)" > on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:29:31 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> writes:
>I hope the responsible person has more courage.
I may be the responsible person.
I assume your question is why there's no method to obtain singleton
class (per object hidden class), right? That's because I see no real
"need" for it.Besides seeing no real need, such method is highly connected to the
current implementation. Future Ruby (or different implementation of
Ruby interpreter) may want to choose other strategy, for example,
creating a temporary class-like object to manipulate singleton
methods, then update internal object structure according to that
class-like object. Under the implementation like this, a method to
obtain singleton class has no meaning.
What would: (class << obj; self; end) give you if there's no
singleton class?
David
--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
Jon A. Lambert wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
But the "weak puppet" species is incapable to admit a failure within
'their' language system.This is the point where the "spiritual leaders" of the community
intervene.
But it looks that they too don't have the courage to admit their
failures.
Possibly this is the fault of the community, which treats the
designers sometimes like God.Language Designers are humans, not God's.
I too was attacked and savagely beaten by a language designer in my youth. I kept it inside for many years and didn't even realize it until it was brought out in hypnotherapy 7 years ago. Sadly by that time the language designer was deceased and I could not confront her. Not that it would have mattered much anyway, she being an Admiral and protected by the military industrial complex. You are far luckier being able to confront the abusive LD amost directly through the internet. I just wanted to let you know that YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Thank you for bravely standing up and sharing. Maybe others like us who have been abused by LD's can finally come out of hiding and get the recognition and support we need. As for how I conquered my codependent behavior and COBOL addiction... NO I didn't just replace it with Ruby...don't be ridiculous. I found Jesus. Well Jesus and Ruby. That may not work for you. But good luck. I'm pulling for you.
thank's a lot.
..
Austin Ziegler wrote:
On 4/22/05, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
Most know: I am right.
You misspelled "wrong." "Ignorant" is another good alternate
spelling for the word you meant. As are "asinine", "arrogant", and
even "obstinately, willfully, stupid."You've been shown -- both practically and theoretically -- why
you're wrong. By almost a dozen people, including the language
designer.Your pretensions don't change reality.
Reality is:
point b) was _directly_ confirmed by the language designer.
point a) is _indirectly_ confirmed.
point c) needs no confirmation, it is a logical conclusion.
-
so, please stop you endless babbling and accept that I'm right.
Try it: "Ilias Lazaridis is right".
It's not so difficult, even for you.
The first step is: "Ilias Lazaridis is right, at least with point b)"
go on.
-austin
..
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]sso = Specializing Singleton Object
ISBO = Instance Specific Behaviour Object
dvto = Dedicated Virtual Table Object
dvco = Dedicated Virtual Class Object
dvc = Dedicated Virtual Class
dsc = dedicated singleton class
sco = singleton class object
asco = attached singleton class object
"singleton instance" = the one and only instance
"singleton method" = a method, exclusively for one instance
"singleton class" = a class, exclusively for one instance=>
sco = Singleton class object
sc = Singleton class
s = singleton
=> <object>.singleton
=> <object>.singletonClass
obj.class
obj.class_singleton
obj.singleton_classobj.exclusive_singleton_class
abstracted (not specifying a class):
obj.exclusive_behaviour_carrier
obj.ebc
-
obj.exclusive_class
obj.exclassobj.xclass
x class (x=not known yet what it is)
obj.xclass
Customizes Object
obj.customizing_class
obj.cclass
obj.custom
..