From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2004-11-16T08:52:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Kernel#singleton_class

On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, 4:54:13 AM, trans. wrote:

> On Monday 15 November 2004 12:28 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> | Hi,
> |
> | In message "Re: Kernel#singleton_class"
> |
> |     on Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:45:31 +0900, "David A. Black" 
> <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
| |>> I guess it's probably best to let matz decide the name.
> | |
> | |Yeah, as long as he doesn't choose 'virtual' :-)
> |
> | I'd call them singleton classes.  Any objection?
> |
> |        matz.

> Yes, cause of singleton pattern.

No, because of historical reasons, and the ability to distinguish
between two different uses of "singleton".  (Besides, the Singleton
Pattern has fallen foul of OO purists.)

I say go for it, Matz.

Gavin