From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2004-11-16T03:18:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Kernel#singleton_class

Hi,

In message "Re: Kernel#singleton_class"
    on Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:54:13 +0900, "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@runbox.com> writes:

|| I'd call them singleton classes.  Any objection?

|Yes, cause of singleton pattern.

Hmm, any other alternative?

I don't prefer the terms "instance class" and "object class", just
because it's meaningless.  Classes are naturally corresponding to
objects (or instances) in OOP.  Besides, the word singleton used from
Lisp era, way older than design patterns, IIRC.

							matz.