From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-11-15T23:48:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Kernel#singleton_class


"David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0411150600350.19936-100000@wobblini...
> Hi --
>
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:
>
> > On Monday 15 November 2004 08:45 am, David A. Black wrote:
> > |
> > | Yeah, as long as he doesn't choose 'virtual' :-)
> >
> > He he. Seems like all the readily floated possibilities have poor
> > connotations. I've heard complaints about all three: 'virtual',
'meta', and
> > of course, 'singleton'. So what do others think of 'instance' class?
Or more
> > to the point 'special' class -- a specialton ;)
>
> In thinking about such things my mind always jumps to the question:
> how easy (or not) will it be to explain to people?  I think instance
> class might be fairly good in that regard, but I'm not sure it's
> logical.  Why not "object class", since above all everything that has
> one is an object?  Which also means it's an instance, but why choose
> that as its main identity?  (Not that I like "object class"; I'm just
> not sure that I'm seeing the reasoning behind "instance class".)
>
> I'd also thought of "own class", as in:
>
>   obj.class
>   obj.own_class

What about obj.my_own_class?  Ok, just kidding... :-)

> (I'd actually prefer #class to be deprecated in favor of #birth_class,
> so as to make a clearer pairing of, and distinction between, an
> object's two classes.  but I do not expect that to happen :-)

So am I.

Cheers

    robert