Robert Klemme wrote:
> 
> Sounds reasonable.  Thanks for that example!
> 
> Still, this seems quite some change to me, doesn't it?  I guess this 
> inheritance does only work for class instance singleton classes - at 
> least that seems the most reasonable (only?) way to do it to me.  That 
> would also reduce the likelyhood of code breakage.  .... It seems, 
> incombatibility isn't that big issue as I thought initially.  That's nice!
> 

I don't think that that much has changed. In the case of

require "metaid"

class A
end

class B < A
end

B.metaclass has always been a subclass of A.metaclass

The only change in 1.9 is the fact that B.metaclass < A.metaclass now 
returns true

--
Mark Sparshatt