From: Ryan Leavengood <mrcode@...>
Date: 2005-05-09T10:08:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Singleton class terminology

David A. Black wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Mon, 9 May 2005, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> 
> I don't like "shadow" for this.  Shadow suggests, to me, a light
> source, an object, and a shadow.  I can't see how that maps onto this.
> It just feels all wrong spatially.

I came up with "shadow class", but I think David makes some good points. 
Also looking at Matz's criteria from the other thread for a good name:

 > 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.

* Shadows are usually associated with one object.
* Shadow is a noun, though I don't know if it could be used as an adjective.
* But "shadow methods" instead of "singleton methods" doesn't quite 
sound right. Hmmm, but it might grow on me...

Still, is "singleton class" really that bad?

Ryan