From: Lyndon Samson <lyndon.samson@...>
Date: 2005-04-22T02:56:13+09:00
Subject: Re: Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly

On 4/22/05, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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".
> 

ILC - Instance Local Class? A variation of Thread Local Storage.



> T.
> 
> 


-- 
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.