From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-11-16T21:33:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Kernel#singleton_class


"David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0411160209190.26196-100000@wobblini...
> 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? :-)

Ooops, that was too fast.  :-)  Must - make - up - prize...

You win a virtual pad on the shoulder combined with a virtual fanfare:
Tataaaaaa!

:-)

    robert