On Monday 13 September 2004 01:45 am, Hal Fulton wrote:
> 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.

Except that it is tied to the object and not the class hierarchy. So it is 
'virtually' a class, but not quite ;)

-- 
( o _
 //    trans.
/ \    transami / runbox.com

I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
-Mark Twain