"Mauricio FernáÏdez" <batsman.geo / yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20040915112257.GA14360 / student.ei.uni-stuttgart.de...
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 05:09:52PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > >> o = Object.new
> > => #<Object:0x10184d40>
> > >> class << o; class << self; def to_s ; "foo" end end end
> > => nil
> > >> class << o; class << self;to_s end end
> > => "foo"
> > >> class << o; class << self; class << self; end end end
> > => nil
> > >> class << o; class << self; to_s end end
> > => "#<Class:foo>"
>
> It's using Module#to_s because the klass of the singleton class is
> no longer itself... Module#to_s ends up calling
>  class << o; self.to_s end
> which you defined before.

Well yes, but the fact remains that there is a singleton we don't know of,
do we?  Probably I don't see clearly your point so I'd appreciate it if
you'd elaborate it.

> > Hm, well ok.  But is there an equivalent without evil.rb, i.e. with
> > "normal" Ruby code?  I know that you can access all kinds of internals
if
> > you write an extension, but AFAIK you can't know whether there is a
> > singleton class or not.
>
> (I assume your last sentence if missing "... without an extension".)

You can safely assume this without altering the indended semantics of the
sentence. :-)

> The case above (singletons of singletons) is the only one I can think
> of right now where you can always know if the singleton has been created
> or not.

see above.

Kind regards

    robert