Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> I don't know what a "virtual class" would be in real terms, but
> semantically, I'd say it's some kind of object benignly masqerading as a
> class.  Like a proxy object for a remote Froboz object might be said to
> masquerade as a Froboz.
> 
> So just because your object above tells the world it's a "Class", I'm not
> necessarily convinced.  I realise that, if this _is_ a benign deception,
> it's a deep one, because you'd expect the #class method to be truthful. 
> However, that's to be expected when we're talking about the deep internals
> of Ruby.
> 
> If the singleton class of an object is not treated exactly the same as a
> "normal" class in Ruby's implementation, then I think there's some
> justification for the word "virtual".

I really think it's just a class. It has special uses, perhaps, but I don't
think it's treated specially. I can't see that it's anything other than a
real Class.


Hal