From: Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>
Date: 2005-05-05T06:59:48+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?

David A. Black wrote:
> Hi -- On Thu, 5 May 2005, Mark Hubbart wrote:
[...]

>> 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...
> 
> Actually one would not want a completely separate name, for the
> reason that the almost-metaclasses really are singleton classes.
> Anything generated by:
> 
> class << self; self; end
> 
> is a singleton class.  

no, it is not.

anything generated by (class << self; self; end)

has not _any_ instance.

Thus it is not a singleton class (which has _one_ instance)

-

It is a hidden class, a virtual class, or simply an "x-class".

x stands for "anything" / "mystery".

x stands for "exclusive" (to _one_ object)

object.xclass.

"singleton class" => x class


http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/index.html

> If 'self' is a Class object, then the
> resulting singleton class is also an almost-metaclass
> (parametaclass?!).  But it doesn't cease to be a singleton class.

almost-metaclasses => meta-objects

or

xclass of class-obj

-

The first step to "break" out of the confusion is to release to term 
"singleton-class", which has a specific meaning.

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com