[ruby-talk:01238] Re: Singleton classes

Clemens Hintze <[e-mail]> writes:

> Both, the old terminology and your proposed one, it too much in the
> hidden internal direction, IMHO. I would call it for what it does, not
> how it work internally.

I think that's a good point. Phrasing from the user's perspective,
rather than implementation, would be good.

I quite like the idea of thinking about it as an object extension, but
even that has problems. What are we extending it with?

   def foo.bar end

is also a kind of object extension.

It's like we're subclassing the class of an object. How about
'anonymous subclass'?


> In the past there was a problem with the terms of iterators. matz has
> begun to clarify it, but perhaps there are some places where it is
> still inconsistent yet? It should be called either block (in source)
> or closure (as object) now.

Wouldn't the object be a Proc object?


Dave