From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-12-07T04:22:34+09:00
Subject: Re: injecting dynamic methods into a class


David A. Black wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Trans wrote:
>
> > Okay David, its obvious you're getting upset. Though you say the
> > questions are rhetorical, they nonetheless have a very simple answer:
> >
> >   I ASKED MATZ AND HE HAD NO ANSWER.
> >
> > What am I suppose to think then? Don't you recall the conversation? It
> > wan't that long ago. In fact I think it was in that thread _why first
> > came up with the term 'eigenclass', or at least the first I had heard
> > of it. And at the tiem I was suggesting the term "special class".
> >
> > So I dont know where you gettting this disconnect between matz and
> > community. I asked matz, Matz has participated, but obviously he's not
> > sure either or he would have made it clear. If Matz wanted to, he could
> > easily step in at anytime and say "Hey, enough. This is what we call
> > it". Right? Maybe he will eventually, but in the mean time I don't see
> > anything wrong with trying out alternatives. We all know that the term
> > 'singleton' has a semantic overlap problem, as is once again
> > demonstrated by Johnathans post to this thread. Go back and read it. So
> > lets keep trying out the possibilites. If for instance you really like
> > "own" then use it see if it sticks. Short of Matz making an edict, I
> > don't see how else it can get worked out.
>
> I almost literally can't believe my answer to this isn't clear from what
> I've already said, but in case not, the answer is: use the standard (if
> sometimes problematic) term, and don't set deadlines for Matz.  To say
> that Matz is "not sure", and that therefore all bets are off, just because
> he hasn't made a change, is wrong.
>
> I don't *want* to go around talking about "own classes".  I don't *want*
> to introduce coinages into Ruby discourse in the hope that people will
> think they're conventional terms that other people will understand, when
> they aren't.  "Trying out the possibilities" means muddying the waters and
> confusing newcomers.  I don't want to do that either, to the extent I can
> help it.

Standards? Alright genius, why don't you use the the term "virtual
class" then? After all that's what it says in the source code -- and
you can't get any more standard than that. But I remember cleary you
going-on, "Please not virtual class!", and how terrible it was becuase
of it's sematic overlap with the kind in c. Well, I have the same
problem with singleton, and worse because both kinds exist in Ruby. I
never like using the term becuase I always feel like I need to put a
dang parenthecal explination after it. Why is your trouble more
important than the other?  --Indeed, on reflection, it seems that
people stopped using "virtual" b/c of your request. Hmmm...I wonder
what term they use in Japanese?

Anyway, I'm sorry there was all this fuss. The term adhoc works as a
general lingusitic modifier with the appropriate meaning, whether its
is a "standard" term or not, and I will use it as such --a
singleoton/eigen/meta/virtual class, whatever you call it, is very much
adhoc.

T.