From: "David A. Black" Date: 2005-12-07T04:42:33+09:00 Subject: Re: injecting dynamic methods into a class Hi -- On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Trans wrote: > > 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. My problem with virtual is that singleton classes aren't virtual. > 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? You're mixing up two things. I have no problem with discussing the merits of all these terms. As you say, I've been involved in these discussions already, and I imagine I will continue to be. What I don't like is jumping ship from the whole discussion process, because Matz's supposed time-limit has expired (or whatever), and just starting to use a term in the hope that it will "take". > 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. Singleton classes are also (one finds) "puzzling" to a lot of people. I would not like to see a sect of people saying that "every object has a 'puzzling class'". There's got to be more to this than everyone coming up with an adjective that he or she finds apt and using it. David __ David A. Black dblack@wobblini.net "Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!