Kevin Bullock wrote in post #1011446:

> ... seems like you're confusing _subclassing_ with
> _instantiation_ ...

I think you're right.


Let me restate, just so I'll remember.

>>  BasicObject's class is Class
    because BasicObject is an _instance_ of Class.

>>  BasicObject's superclass is
    because BasicObject is NOT a _subclass_ of anything.

>>  BasicObject's ancestors are [BasicObject]
    because BasicObject is NOT a _subclass_ of anything.

>>  BasicObject kind of BasicObject? true
    because BasicObject is an _instance_ of Class,
    and Class is a _subclass_ of Module,
    and Module is a _subclass_ of Object,
    and Object is a _subclass_ of BasicObject.

>>  BasicObject instance of BasicObject? false
    because BasicObject is an instance of Class,
    and an object can only be an instance of one thing.

>>  BasicObject kind of Object? true
    because BasicObject is an _instance_ of Class,
    and Class < Module < Object.

>>  BasicObject instance of Object? false
    because BasicObject is an instance of Class,
    and an object can only be an instance of one thing.

>>  BasicObject kind of Class? true
    because BasicObject is an _instance_ of Class.

>>  BasicObject instance of Class? true
    because BasicObject is an _instance_ of Class.


I'll leave it at that for now, and try to improve my understanding so 
that I more readily make the distinction between _instance_ and 
_subclass_.

(and I'll leave for another day the cicularity that Object is an 
_instance_ of its _subclass_ Class ...)

Thanks,

j

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.