In some of my documentation I have found this wording to be useful: for
“metaclass” it is “class qua class” or “module qua class”. For an
object’s singleton class, “object qua class”.
I like quaclass.
T.
In some of my documentation I have found this wording to be useful: for
“metaclass” it is “class qua class” or “module qua class”. For an
object’s singleton class, “object qua class”.
I like quaclass.
T.
[email protected] wrote:
In some of my documentation I have found this wording to be useful: for
“metaclass” it is “class qua class” or “module qua class”. For an
object’s singleton class, “object qua class”.I like quaclass.
Actually, for us duck typers, a quaclass is anything that behaves like a
class
Joel VanderWerf wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
In some of my documentation I have found this wording to be useful: for
“metaclass” it is “class qua class” or “module qua class”. For an
object’s singleton class, “object qua class”.I like quaclass.
Actually, for us duck typers, a quaclass is anything that behaves like a
class
Hey, there’s actually some truth to that. The quaclass can be used to
make an object quack like another class.
T.
On 6/20/06, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:
I like quaclass.
Makes a bit of a pun with ‘quack’, as in ‘duck typing’.
Dido S. wrote:
On 6/20/06, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:
I like quaclass.
Makes a bit of a pun with ‘quack’, as in ‘duck typing’.
Q. How do you turn a duck into a singer?
A. Put it in the microwave until its bill withers.
–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs