From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2005-05-09T08:29:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Singleton class terminology

On 5/8/05, Hal Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thank you, Hal. This is much the same though that I've been having,
although I must admit that I really liked one of the suggestions given
in the other thread. Combine these two points, and I think that we
have a winner.

First, for anyone who ever used OS/2, you may remember the WorkPlace
Shell (WPS)[1]. It was a fully OO desktop that allowed you to do quite
a bit. Instead of "shortcuts" on the desktop, you had shadows. In many
ways, the concept as OS/2 used it isn't 100% applicable (as it was
"just a pointer"), but let's think about the term for a moment.
Someone suggested a shadow class. This is appropriate, to a degree,
because the "singleton class" shadows the object. But that disconnect
suggests the answer:

What we now call the "singleton class" is really a "shadow object".
Indeed, we could simply get away with calling it the object's #shadow
(#__shadow__ for safety purposes). Similarly, we could have #shadow?
(or #is_shadow?) to satisfy Ara's needs.

What do you think?

-austin
[1] http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au/os2/concepts.html#objects
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca