From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-11-16T03:38:11+09:00
Subject: Re: Kernel#singleton_class

On Monday 15 November 2004 01:18 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
| 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.

Interesting. I didn't know that. I wouldn't normally object but I've seen 
discussion confusion over this more times than I can count. As for something 
meaningful, the word 'special', as in specialized, again comes to mind.

Merriam-Webster Entry
Entry Word: special
Function: adjective
Text: 1 of or relating to one thing or class

-T.