From: Mark Hubbart <discordantus@...>
Date: 2005-04-22T02:17:35+09:00
Subject: Re: Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly

On 4/21/05, csaba <csaba.henk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> David A. Black wrote:
> 
> > I always thought it was singleton in the sense that, unlike the
> "birth
> > class", it was not shared with other objects.  There is of course a
> > long history of discussion about the term "singleton", and the fact
> > that it's overloaded....  I've suggested "own class", and others have
> > suggested other terms, though I don't know that even a pronouncement
> > from Matz will change usage completely.
> 
> "Own class" is the best I've heard 'till now in terms of correctness,
> it's just a bit "pale". I mean, when you say "I go there by my own
> car", then the "own" doesn't refer to a special type of car, it just
> refers to some relation of the car with other things. It refers to a
> non-intrinsic thing. But if you say
> "I go there by my batcar", that makes a difference. Such a thing is
> what we need for ruby.
> 
> What about "eigenclass", like in eigenvalue?

I think you're right about "own class". The most defining
characteristic of "singleton classes" is probably not that they only
have one instance, but that only one instance  has *them* :) They are
the personal, or private class of that object. a jaunt through a
thesaurus gives a few possible synonyms for "own class":
- personal class
- private class
- exclusive class
- reserved class

I'm not sure "personal" works when referring to objects (or classes);
it sounds like an attempt to anthropomorphize them.
"private" might be good, though it might be confusing, what with
public/private methods. But it couldn't be more confusing than
"singleton class" vs "Singleton class" :)
"exclusive", I'm not sure if it sounds right, or has the right shade
of meaning. "reserved" either.

What do you think of "private class"? Or is there some other
definition I'm missing that would preclude that? Would that be a good
overloading of terms?

cheers,
Mark