From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-11-15T22:45:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Kernel#singleton_class

Hi --

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Florian Gross wrote:

> David A. Black wrote:
> 
> >>Maybe .meta_class and .meta_class_eval should really be part of Standard 
> >>Ruby...
> > 
> > I've got an RCR in for singleton_class.  (I know, the terminology is
> > different, but it's the same idea :-)  I still don't know what the
> > perfect word would be for That Class.)  I don't think a separate
> > _class_eval method would be necessary or good.  As with every other
> > class, you could just call class_eval on the class object.  
> > 
> > I firmly believe that having a singleton_class method (or whatever
> > it's called) would make it much, much easier for people to understand
> > the whole design.  See <http://www.rcrchive.net/rcr/show/231>.
> 
> Hm, looks like I already voted on it. I can live with it being named 
> #singleton_class, #meta_class or even #virtual_class -- I don't really 
> know what name would be best. I'm just in favor of #meta_class because 
> it avoids the name clash with the singleton pattern. (Which seems to be 
> obsolete in Ruby anyway -- it seems to be the case that everywhere where 
> you would use it you can just as well use a Module...)
> 
> I guess it's probably best to let matz decide the name.

Yeah, as long as he doesn't choose 'virtual' :-)


David

P.S. Yes, I know this is going to the list :-)

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net