[ruby-core:27421] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method

Hi,

2010/1/5 James Edward Gray II <[e-mail]>

>  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
>
>
+1 for eigenclass:

I think something is confusing for me between

(1) class << obj
  self
end

and

(2) class << MyClass
  def method # this is a class method, a method that MyClass-Object owns,
alone (without needing to make an instance to use)
  end
end

Here, I feel far less confusing the eigenclass.
Well, the syntax we are trying to name,
is describing a class who allow us to write methods that concern the object
globally(1), as a single object(2).

Eigenclass means then the "proper"(~ global,single) class to that Object, a
class who concerns only one Object, but that Object doesn't look like a
singleton especially, it's just a single object. We didn't build it with a
class describing it (or that doesn't matter), we are just speaking to it
directly, ignoring what's around.

For me, singleton is confusing, and wrong, as it has a name of "created and
it's the only one of a 'class' ", while that 'class' means nothing here.

"eigenclass" seem, according to me, the only alternative in the 3 proposed
to name both the 2 situations above.
(While I think we'll still use a lot of class << MyClass; def m(); end; end,
that is kind of very useful)

"singleton_class" is already used in Ruby, yes, but not very wide, and it
can still change if needed:
$> ri singleton
  1 Numeric#singleton_method_added
  2 Object#define_singleton_method
  3 Object#singleton_methods
  4 RDoc::Generator::Method#singleton
(I must admit a singleton method SEEMS more clear here than a eigen
method..., but it would not be obfuscating neither I think)

And the last reason: eigenclass is original, sounds cool, is not so
confusing and unique (like Ruby) !

Here was my piece of advice to name this.

Benoit Daloze