From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-05-09T08:22:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Singleton class terminology

Hi --

On Mon, 9 May 2005, Hal Fulton wrote:

[...]

> 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]"?

Some more thoughts:

What I do like about the "class" in "singleton class" is that it fits
so beautifully, from the object-handling point of view, with the rest
of the design.  By which I really mean that I would not want to see
some completely new category or concept introduced, cut adrift from
the basic language design and its familiar idioms, just for the sake
of not calling it something familiar, even if calling it that is a bit
of a stretch.

I'm concerned about a proliferation of concepts and terms: class,
module, new thing....  I'm not in agreement with Matju about unifying
classes and modules, but on the other side of the equation I think
having a completely separate concept to deal with the housing of
singleton methods and constants (and, presumably, new keywords
and syntax for getting access to them) would run a serious risk of
clutter.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net