Is an instance of a class really an instance of its superclass too?

Ruby
1

I understand that the answer to that question is yes.

But then a singleton class (using require ‘singleton’) can have two or
more instances in a Ruby program, like:

require ‘singleton’

class Super
include Singleton
end
class Sub < Super
end

puts Super.instance
puts Sub.instance

#=> Super:0x000000024b5648
#=> Sub:0x000000024b55d0

Doesn’t this mean we have two instances of a class (Super) whose only
one instance should have been in the program (because the class included
‘singleton’)? IOW, shouldn’t class Sub < Super be disallowed?

Thanks,
Kedar

2

On Jan 24, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Kedar M. wrote:

Doesn’t this mean we have two instances of a class (Super) whose only
one instance should have been in the program (because the class included
‘singleton’)? IOW, shouldn’t class Sub < Super be disallowed?

I think you answer your own question. The contract created by the
‘singleton’ feature is in regards to direct instances and not indirect
instances via a subclass.

Making the contract more restrictive as you suggest, would limit the use
cases for no particular reason. If you don’t want a subclass, then don’t
create one. In general I think it is better to avoid arbitrary
restrictions. In most cases, with Ruby, those restrictions don’t really
prevent anything because methods and classes can always be redefined.

Gary W.