jonathan leonard <zjll9 / imail.etsu.edu> wrote:
> T,
>
> > Any given
> > class can have infinitely many  singleton subclases, no?
>
> Oops.  This statement from the page you linked to seems to answer that
> question:
>
> If 'a' already has a singleton class then any more singleton methods you
> define are just added to it.
>
> Does this mean that a class can have only one singleton subclass and
> that all methods added anywhere in the program are added to that single
> instance?  If so, I wonder why this is.  It seems to me to be more
> useful if you can have infinitely many singleton subclasses.  I suppose
> you still can have divergence of this sort with individual instances,
> but why not with the class itself?

Well, I think its basically because Matz used the class nothing more
then an easy way to implement ad hoc methods. It was the methods that
mattered to him, not the class --the class was just a vehicle. He's
talked about the possibility of not utilizing the class in the future.
I assume that means these methods would then just exit in a separate
underlying namespace of the class, as opposed to a separate class
altogether. Which may also be the reason he's allowed then name to
remain a bit amorphis and never provided a convenience method for
accessing it.

T.