On 8/4/07, Pit Capitain <pit.capitain / gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/8/4, Keith Rarick <kr / essembly.com>:
> > Out of curiosity, why are metaclasses treated differently than regular
> > classes in this respect?
>
> Keith, I've been asking this time and again since a couple of years
> ago. I think the reason is that Matz didn't want singleton classes to
> be part of the Ruby language (yet).
A more recent thread about a Singleton class not being in ancestors
seems to confirm your theory.
Matz explicitly added a check for singleton classes not to be in
ancestor, he was kind of violating smooth flow. I was sure that he had
a hidden agenda in order to do such things, it might be what you said
below.
I nevertheless share the feelings of some others that it is a shame!
Of course if Matz were right I'd love to see the concept and I'd love
to see singleton classes go away, but I feel it is impossible :(.

>He always said it would be
> possible to implement singleton methods without having singleton
> classes. I got the impression that he might be changing his mind for
> future versions of Ruby, though, but I'm not sure. Matz, if you read
> this, are there some new insights concerning this topic?
+222 here
>
> Regards,
> Pit
>
>
Cheers
Robert

-- 
[...] as simple as possible, but no simpler.
-- Attributed to Albert Einstein