From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-04-22T03:18:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly

Hi --

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, csaba 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.

I don't know... it may be time for a little paleness in the
terminology.  All the snazzy, exciting terminology seems to cause
problems :-)

> What about "eigenclass", like in eigenvalue?

But eigen is just German for own.  I'd rather just keep it in English.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net