"MikkelFJ" <mikkelfj-anti-spam / bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3d5d07d8$0$33591$edfadb0f / dspool01.news.tele.dk...
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> > The term "static" is misleading.  Static (as used in Java and C++)
> > refers to stand-alone functions that are in the scope of a class, but
> > can be invoked without any reference to an object instance.  No such
> > thing exists in Ruby.
>
> This isn't exactly true. The C++ class can have static data members. If you
> like, you can call these part of the static object instance. You can call
> the functions without a reference to an instance because the compiler
> implicitly knows the location of the static instance, still you give the
> name of class, just as you do in Ruby. When I use the term static it relates
> to the statically allocated nature (or preallocated globally known nature).

What about anonymous classes ?  They sort of
make your argument mood IMHO.

---
anon = Class.new

class A; end

anon.class_eval  {
    @my_name = "anon"
    def inst_meth
         puts "an inst"
    end
    Const  = "anon's_const"
     def A.const
        puts Const
    end
}

class << anon
    def my_name
        puts @my_name
    end
end

anon.new.inst_meth # an_inst
anon.my_name        # anon
A.const                    # anon's_const
---

/Christoph