From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-04-22T02:49:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly

> 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?

Problem with that is a concept that has been foward for classes that
are not visible outside a given scope. eg.

  class X
    private class Y
      # ...
    end
    # ...
  end

Not that Ruby has them (yet ;-)  but that would most certainly be
called a "private class".

I had been holding on to the term "special class", but I suppose that
makes it sound like it has "special" needs :-) Perhaps we should try a
differnt tact, like "root class" or "direct class".

T.