On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

> D. A. Black wrote:
> > I think Matz is actually migrating from 'singleton class' to 'virtual
> > class'.  I don't like that term very much (there's nothing really
> > "virtual" about it; it's a real class, once it's created, and if it's
> > not created, it's not even virtual), but it's probably a good idea to
> > keep the terminology unified.
> 
> Interesting.  "It's a real class, once it's created, ..."  On what grounds
> do you deem it to be a "real" class?

irb(main):001:0> c = (class << ""; self; end)
=> #<Class:#<String:0x402a8294>>
irb(main):002:0> c.class
=> Class


> And if there were such a thing as a "virtual class", what would it be?

I have no idea.  The term doesn't evoke anything to me.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net