From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-04-19T19:12:27+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly

Hi --

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Jim Weirich wrote:

> I wrote:
>>
>> (I think I misread the p. 382 thing about "virtual".  It does actually
>> sound like Matz is accepting it as a synonym for "singleton", though I
>> avoid it because I don't see anything "virtual" about singleton
>> classes.  They're objects.)
>
> I think the "virtual" is a modifier of "class", not "object".  A virtual class
> is something that is like a class in someways (it holds instance methods),
> but unlike a class in other ways (can't create new instances of it).

It is a modifier of "class", not "object"; I think Matz (via Pickaxe)
is saying that "virtual class" is an acceptable synonym for "singleton
class".  Actually I don't like it both for my reason ("virtual", taken
on its own, doesn't evoke something as concrete as a singleton class)
and for your reason (it has a meaning in other languages that is only
a partial fit, as I understand it, for Ruby's singleton classes).


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net