On 22 Jan 2003, Phil Tomson wrote:

> That's certianly one way to do it...  I guess I'm looking at Evolvable as
> more of a namespace than a class that defines an object, though.

a singleton is really nothing more than an encapsulation of some data and some
methods - just like a namespace - but i understand your objection

> And if I leave it as a module it could be mixed into a class later (though
> that's not how I'm using it now) and all of the 'module instance variables'
> would also end up in the class it was mixed into....

i don't think it works that way :

  module M
    attr_accessor :x
    @x = 42
  end

  class Foo; include M; end

  p Foo.new.x  # >> nil

the instance variable STAY in M, that's what i was referring to when i said i
was unsure of the semantics.

-a

-- 

 ====================================
 | Ara Howard
 | NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
 | Information and Technology Services
 | Data Systems Group
 | R/FST 325 Broadway
 | Boulder, CO 80305-3328
 | Email: ahoward / fsl.noaa.gov
 | Phone:  303-497-7238
 | Fax:    303-497-7259
 ====================================