[ruby-core:27411] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method

On Jan 4, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>=20
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:27407] Re: [Feature #1082] add =
Object#singleton_class 	method"
>    on Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:26:41 +0900, Shugo Maeda =
<[e-mail]> writes:
>=20
> |I prefer singleton_class than eigenclass.  I suppose that "singleton
> |class" is not so confusing with a class which implements the =
Singleton
> |pattern because the word singleton remind Ruby users of singleton
> |methods rather than the Singleton pattern.
>=20
> Basically, I agree.

I know we worry a lot about people confusing the term, but I've just =
never met anyone who does.  In all my time in Ruby, I haven't run across =
one single person who said to me, "Oh, you mean it's the Singleton =
Pattern?"  Have others really seen more of this problem actually =
occurring?

Even with the double meaning, I really don't feel like this is one of =
the more confusing concepts in programming.  We have much worse.  I =
personally have far more trouble teaching what a Symbol is in my =
classes, for example.  :)  If someone really does confuse it, we'll =
explain it and send them on their way armed with better knowledge. =20

Finally, the damage is already done.  For a long time, Ruby considered =
it a singleton class, for better or worse.  We have core methods named =
after it, but are told we can't add a method because of the name.  I =
think it's a little late for that now.  Besides, if we change it people =
will just have a new problem, "Oh, didn't that use to be called the =
singleton class?"

Those are my three reasons why I vote for singleton class.

Matz, I know your patience exceeds mine 1,000 fold.  That's one of your =
great strengths and why you are in charge.  I totally trust you too.  =
However, I don't think you're going to find the perfect name this time.  =
You've waited a long time and heard a lot of choices.  If nothing has =
won you over yet, maybe we should just go with an OK choice that we =
already have.  Surely, seeing:

  obj.bad_name_class

is preferable to:

  class << obj; self end

and we can do even better than that with singleton_class.  :)

James Edward Gray II