From: "trans. (T. Onoma)" Date: 2004-09-14T11:17:15+09:00 Subject: Re: Singleton method on object via define_method? On Monday 13 September 2004 09:24 pm, Phil Tomson wrote: > In article , > > David A. Black 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? Cause it is so meta-meaningless !? What about something most meaningful, like per_instance_class or per_object_class. Albeit virtual_class doesn't bother me as much. I don't C. -- ( o _ カラチ // trans. / \ transami@runbox.com I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way. -Mark Twain