"mark sparshatt" <msparshatt / yahoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:4275312F.3080805 / yahoo.co.uk...
> 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

Oh, I wasn't aware of that.  *duh*  Learn something new every day.  Thanks 
for educating me!

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

Ok, I see.  Then it's indee minor.

Kind regards

    robert