From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-11-16T10:06:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Kernel#singleton_class

Hi --

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

> 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.)

If there's a conflict, though, it's got to do with the existence of
the Singleton module in Ruby, popular or not :-)  I do find myself
sometimes starting to write "singleton class", and then realizing that
that could be this:

  class << obj; self; end

or this:

  class C
    include 'singleton'
  end

I don't think this should be the deciding factor, but I do think that
we'll have lots of "not to be confused with..." explanations as long
as they both have this name.  


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net