From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-11-16T19:09:42+09:00
Subject: Re: Kernel#singleton_class

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Robert Klemme wrote:

> 
> "Florian Gross" <flgr@ccan.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:2vsa7rF2ot432U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday 15 November 2004 12:28 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> > > | I'd call them singleton classes.  Any objection?
> > > |
> > > |        matz.
> > >
> > > Yes, cause of singleton pattern.
> >
> > Objection to the objection: The singleton pattern is not widely used in
> > Ruby. Couldn't we rename the implementation of it? Maybe something like
> > "SingleInstanceClass"?
> 
> But this will have more impact on existing code.  I vote for conservative
> behavior here: leave Singleton as it is and invent a good name for the
> method that returns TCFKASC (who will guess this? Ruby quiz #13.5... :-))

The Class Formerly Known As Singleton Class.  What do I win? :-)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net