From: ptkwt@... (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2004-09-14T10:24:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Singleton method on object via define_method?

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409130856080.26699-100000@wobblini>,
David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
>Hi --
>
>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>> Originally I was going to argue that "virtual" is inappropriate because it
>> was deceiving.  While thinking about this issue it occurred to me that
>> "singleton classes" aka "virtual classes" share a property with C++'s
>> "virtual classes": you cannot instantiate objects from them.
>
>Actually if C++ has virtual classes, I think that's all the more
>reason for Ruby not to call them that.  Any such point of contact
>inevitably leads to misunderstanding and/or expectation (i.e., that
>Ruby will be like the other language).  
>

I agree.  There are already too many overloaded terms - isn't that why we 
were trying to get away from using 'singleton' class?

Now I don't remember, but what was the problem with calling them 
metaclasses?

Phil