From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2005-05-09T00:13:15+09:00
Subject: Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes

In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
    on Sun, 8 May 2005 06:14:28 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> writes:

|Another suggestion for the "Ruby Singleton Classes" or "Exclusive Classes":
|
|Sterile Classes

Sterile means "Not producing or incapable of producing offspring",
right?  The word suggest the (class-like) object cannot create its
instances.  But this is not the only class-like object in Ruby that
can not (or should not) create its instances, for example, modules in
Ruby are class-like objects which are not capable to instantiate.
Abstract classes as well are classes not supposed to create their
direct instances.  

Being hidden from observable object model is not important neither.
In the new model, it would not be hidden any more, and perhaps, there
will be a method to retrieve "singleton class" from an object.  I hope
the method name would not be Object#singleton_class.

I'd like to emphasize the "per-object" attribute of the object.
Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where 

  * xxxx describe the class is per-object.
  * xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
  * we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
    methods for consistency.

In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
conflict.  Sad coincidence.

							matz.