From: Mark Hubbart <discordantus@...>
Date: 2005-05-05T01:28:56+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?

On 5/4/05, Jim Weirich <jim@weirichhouse.org> wrote:
> 
> David A. Black said:
> >> i believe the implementaion is correct iff the following statement is
> >> true:
> >>
> >>  all meta-classes descend from the meta-class of Object.
> >
> > I fear the terminology issue raises its head here.  Is there any
> > reason not to use the customary "singleton class", pending some
> > pronouncement from Matz that it's no longer the right term?
> 
> There is a distinction, although some people blur it.  Those things that
> are almost metaclasses (but aren't because Ruby doesn't have metaclasses)
> are a subset of all singleton classes.  As noted, these almost-metaclasses
> inherit from the almost-metaclass of Object.  These almost-metaclasses are
> the singleton classes of Class objects.
> 
> All almost-metaclasses are singleton classes.  Not all singleton classes
> are almost-metaclasses.

All the more reason to give them a different name... At this point, I
care very little what they're called; virtual class, idioclass, own
class, whatever. Just give us a nice, non-overlapping name to call
them by. I guess singleton class will have to do until then, though...

With all these different names being thrown around, it feels like an
election year again! :)

cheers,
Mark