I want to fix a typo. I said: Since Object, Class, and Module are instances of Class class, they don't have access to Class's singleton methods, but rather they have access to Class's instance methods:
I meant to say: Object and Module do not inherit from Class and so they don't have access to Class's singleton methods, but since Object, Class, and Module are instances of Class class, they all have access to Class's instance methods: On Oct 3, 11:08 pm, John Merlino <stoici...@aol.com> wrote: > Yes, Object, Class, and Module are more than just constants. Object, > Class, and Module are instances of Class class: > > 1.9.3p0 :031 > Class.class > => Class > 1.9.3p0 :032 > Module.class > => Class > 1.9.3p0 :033 > Object.class > => Class > > Since Object, Class, and Module are instances of Class class, they > don't have access to Class's singleton methods, but rather they have > access to Class's instance methods: > > 1.9.3p0 :052 > class Class > 1.9.3p0 :053?> def Class.abc > 1.9.3p0 :054?> puts 'abc' > 1.9.3p0 :055?> end > 1.9.3p0 :056?> end > => nil > > 1.9.3p0 :076 > Module.abc > NoMethodError: undefined method `abc' for Module:Class > > 1.9.3p0 :077 > Object.abc > NoMethodError: undefined method `abc' for Object:Class > > However, since we defined the singleton method on Class, it will work > on a Class invocation: > > 1.9.3p0 :078 > Class.abc > abc > => nil > > But instance methods work: > > 1.9.3p0 :012 > Class.instance_methods(false) > => > [:allocate, :new, :superclass, :cattr_reader, :cattr_writer, :cattr_accessor, > …] > > 1.9.3p0 :015 > Object.cattr_writer > => [] > 1.9.3p0 :017 > Module.cattr_reader > => [] > 1.9.3p0 :018 > Class.cattr_writer > => [] > > This here is an indication that Object and Module are instances of > Class but DO NOT inherit from Class. Let's check that out with the > superclass call: > > 1.9.3p0 :079 > Class.superclass > => Module > 1.9.3p0 :080 > Module.superclass > => Object > 1.9.3p0 :081 > Object.superclass > => BasicObject > 1.9.3p0 :082 > BasicObect.superclass > => nil > > Thus, Class inherits from Module, and Module in turn inherits from > Object, which in turn inherits from BasicObject in ruby 1.9. We can > test that out by seeing if we define a singleton method on Module, > then Class should be able to invoke it, since there is inheritance > between them. > > 1.9.3p0 :067 > class Module > 1.9.3p0 :068?> def Module.qqqw > 1.9.3p0 :069?> puts 'qqqw' > 1.9.3p0 :070?> end > 1.9.3p0 :071?> end > => nil > 1.9.3p0 :072 > Module.singleton_methods(false) > => > [:nesting, :constants, :attr_internal_naming_format, > :attr_internal_naming_format=, :qqqw] > 1.9.3p0 :073 > Class.qqqw > qqqw > => nil > 1.9.3p0 :074 > Object.qqqw > NoMethodError: undefined method `qqqw' for Object:Class > > 1.9.3p0 :084 > class Object > 1.9.3p0 :085?> def Object.ttyy > 1.9.3p0 :086?> puts 'ttyy' > 1.9.3p0 :087?> end > 1.9.3p0 :088?> end > => nil > 1.9.3p0 :089 > Module.ttyy > ttyy > => nil > 1.9.3p0 :090 > Class.ttyy > ttyy > => nil > > This shows the role of inheritance. We defined a singleton method on > Object, and thus since Module inherits from Object, it had access to > it, and so did Class, since Class inherits from Module, which in turn > inherits from Object. > > Now that's the metaclass (eigenclass) inheritance relationship (the > fact that the eighenclass of Class inherits the singleton methods of > the eighenclass of Module which in turn inherits the singleton methods > of eigenclass of Object). If the inheritance relationship did not > exist as it does, then we wouldnt be able to call singleton methods of > Module on Class, for example. > > Furthermore, we have a circular relationship. Since Class is an > instance of Class, Module is an instance of Class, and Object is an > instance of Class, they all have access to instance methods of Class, > as already stated. What's more interesting is the circular > relationship that has been created via the combination of > instantiation and inheritance. If Object is an instance of Class, and > Class inherits from Module, then that means Class is an instance of > Module, and so since Object is an instance of Class, it itself is an > instance of Module. Hence, we can access the INSTANCE METHODS of any > of these classes via the other Class. > > 1.9.3p0 :094 > Class.is_a?(Module) > => true > 1.9.3p0 :095 > Module.is_a?(Class) > => true > 1.9.3p0 :096 > Object.is_a?(Module) > => true > 1.9.3p0 :097 > Object.is_a?(Class) > => true > > Now lets access an instance method of Module on Object: > > 1.9.3p0 :098 > Module.instance_methods(false) > => > [:freeze, :===, :==, :<=>, :<, :<=, :>, :>=, :to_s, :included_modules, > :include?, :name, :ancestors, :instance_methods, :public_instance_methods, > :protected_instance_methods, :private_instance_methods, :constants, > :const_get, :const_set, :const_defined?, :class_variables, > :remove_class_variable, :class_variable_get, :class_variable_set, > :class_variable_defined?, :public_constant, :private_constant, :module_exec, > :class_exec, :module_eval, :class_eval, :method_defined?, > :public_method_defined?, :private_method_defined?, > :protected_method_defined?, :public_class_method, :private_class_method, > :autoload, :autoload?, :instance_method, :public_instance_method, > :psych_yaml_as, :yaml_as, :deprecate, :alias_method_chain, :alias_attribute, > :mattr_reader, :mattr_writer, :mattr_accessor, :remove_possible_method, > :redefine_method, :delegate, :instance_method_names, :method_names, > :attr_internal_reader, :attr_internal_writer, :attr_internal_accessor, > :attr_internal, :anonymous?, :duplicable?, :reachable?, :parent_name, > :parent, :parents, :local_constants, :local_constant_names, > :attr_accessor_with_default, :synchronize, :pretty_print_cycle, > :pretty_print, :xyz] > 1.9.3p0 :099 > Object.included_modules > => [PP::ObjectMixin, ActiveSupport::Dependencies::Loadable, > JSON::Ext::Generator::GeneratorMethods::Object, Kernel] > > And there you go, it worked. > > On Sep 22, 8:09 pm, Ignacio Piantanida <ijpiantan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Class, Module and Object are instances of the Class class.>> Class.class > > => Class > > >> Module.class > > => Class > > >> Object.class > > > => Class > > > Class inherits from Module, which inherits from Object>> Class.superclass > > => Module > > >> Module.superclass > > > => Object > > > So, every instance of the Class class is_a?(Class) and is_a?(Module) and > > is_a?(Object). > > > 2012/9/22 John Merlino <stoici...@aol.com> > > > > >> reload! > > > Reloading... > > > => true > > > >> puts Class < Module > > > true > > > => nil > > > >> puts Module < Class > > > false > > > => nil > > > >> puts Module < Object > > > true > > > => nil > > > >> puts Object < Module > > > false > > > => nil > > > >> Object.parent > > > => Object > > > > The above indicates that the Class object instance inherits from the > > > Module object instance and the Module object instance inherits from > > > Object. And Object doesn't inherit from anything. > > > > So why do these return true: > > > > >> Module.is_a?(Class) > > > => true > > > >> Object.is_a?(Module) > > > => true > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
