Hi --

On Mon, 16 May 2005, Christoph wrote:

> The core problem is  (I assume because of efficiency reasons), that Matz
> took "a little short cut" of not creating the natural chain of "higher order"
> singleton classes, and cheated by declaring the superclass of any
> "higher order" singleton class to be Klass.
>
> Instead of going to the trouble of implementing an ad hoc "higher order
> singleton class scheme" (b.t.w. - Ruby had a completely different higher
> order singleton class scheme in past)  it might  have been wiser,
> well at least less work, of preventing the creation of   "higher order"
> singleton classes in the first place.

I'd rather just see the #inspect bug fixed :-)

I don't think having (class << Class; self; end) be the superclass of
these singletons is a problem.  At least, if one had a reason to want
to go higher than one level (for example, adding a class method to a
singleton class -- has anyone done that?), it wouldn't really matter
what the class's superclass was.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net