From: ES Date: 2005-05-09T13:03:11+09:00 Subject: Re: Singleton class terminology Le 9/5/2005, "Hal Fulton" a �crit: >David A. Black wrote: >> Hi -- >> >> On Mon, 9 May 2005, Hal Fulton 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. >> >> >> It wasn't supposed to remind one of "idiom". It's a separate use of >> the idio- prefix (as in idiolect, idiosyncrasy, etc.). > >OK, I see. I didn't think of "idiosyncrasy," and I don't know >the word "idiolect." :/ In short, I have never known what >that prefix means. There are two distinct connotations to that prefix which accounts for the confusion: firstly, it is often vulgarly used to refer to language (in English, that is; /idioma/, in Spanish, means language) but secondly (and originally) it refers to something particular, specific or unique--idiosyncracy can be explained as something that is only known within its context. David's suggestion is linguistically delicious in that the way metaclasses are handled in ruby is idiosyncratic to ruby as well as carrying the hidden inference to the peculiarity of a language and, indeed, *a* language in general are exactly what this situation is about. I nominate David for the Grand Equivoque of the Foxy Argotist Society. >Hal E -- template void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }