From: Mark Hubbart <discordantus@...>
Date: 2005-04-22T03:12:02+09:00
Subject: Re: Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly

Strangely, I didn't get Trans' message. I'll reply in the quotes. :/

On 4/21/05, Lyndon Samson <lyndon.samson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 know Java has private classes (or is it just inner classes?), but
I've never heard anyone ask for them in ruby before. Private classes
in that sense really don't seem very rubyish to me. If we'll never
have private classes in that sense, then it leaves the term open. So
that part of it would depend on the chances of Ruby ever having
limited scope classes.

> > 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".

"direct class" isn't bad. I would expect "root class" to be Object, though.

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

This one seems a little verbose to me. maybe just instance class?

cheers,
Mark