David A. Black said:
> I have some trouble applying the quotation to Ruby, since classes make
> but don't determine the properties of objects,

I think you misunderstand "properties".  It is true that the class does
not (directly) influence the attributes/instance variables of an object. 
But properties also include the methods of the object, which are directly
influenced by the class.

Actually, the objections regarding "making objects" and "instance variable
properties" goes more to saying that the singleton classes of classes are
not /classes/, rather than saying they are not /meta/.

What I was trying to focus on is the tendency for folks to call /any/
singleton class a metaclass.  I was just arguing that not all singleton
classes are metaclasses.  I guess we can continue to discuss whether some
subset of singleton classes might be metaclasses.

> Aww, don't you like the _ in my RCR? :-)  (singleton_class)

I should have refered to the RCR before responding.  I added my vote in
favor of it!

-- 
-- Jim Weirich     jim / weirichhouse.org    http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)