(Hopefully the brain cannot be permanently damaged by excessive pondering)

Gary Wright wrote:
> 
> I suppose but then you have to explain why the singleton class didn't  
> provide a masking implementation of its own superclass method, which  
> you don't want it to do since that would break
> various other semantics in particular the behavior of singleton  
> classes of classes and method lookup on class instances.
> 
Come to think of it, isn't this how things are in ruby 1.9? (At least 
this is how I read Christophers post in this thread).

Kind regards