From: ES <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-05-09T05:15:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Singleton class terminology


Le 8/5/2005, "Hal Fulton" <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> a �crit:

>Just expressing my opinion here.
>
>I don't like the term "idioclass" because "idio" doesn't
>remind me of "idiom" at all, and even if it did, it would
>be meaningless to me.
>
>I don't mind the term "singleton class." I'm used to it.
>
>If it must be changed, though, I question whether even the
>word "class" is appropriate.
>
>Consider the traditional meaning of "class" in OOP -- consider
>the *reason* that word was chosen. A "class" is a category.
>It is like a template that characterizes the members of that
>category -- in real life, we expect the "class" of Ford automobiles
>to have certain things in common, or there would be no reason to
>"class" them (or categorize them) together.
>
>But in that sense, a "singleton class" is not a class at all.
>It is just a "place" where we store information on unique methods
>and attributes and such. A class also has a "place" associated
>with it -- whether you think of it as a place in memory, or in
>the interpreter's code, or in the programmer's brain.
>
>But the class and the "place where the class's stuff is stored"
>are not really the same thing, are they? I submit they are not.
>
>I further submit that what we call a "singleton class" is a
>(or has a) "place" but isn't a class at all really; whereas a
>real class IS a class and also has a "place" to store its stuff.
>
>So we've been concentrating on changing the first word of the
>phrase "singleton class." Could we perhaps change the second
>word instead, making it a "singleton [whatsis]"?
>
>Is my thinking here of any value at all?

Yes, excellent question! I was thinking about just giving it
a nonsense name since there really is no direct correspondence
to any existing, if you will excuse me, idiom.

Could we call it #pouch? :)

>Hal

E

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }