From: gwtmp01@...
Date: 2005-12-07T05:48:35+09:00
Subject: Re: injecting dynamic methods into a class


On Dec 6, 2005, at 2:42 PM, David A. Black wrote:
> 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.

Just for the record, IMHO:

virtual class:
    too much semantic overlap with C++ usage
    generally assumed to be associated with a *class* (not an  
arbitrary object)

meta class:
    meta, as an adjective, is too vague
    generally assumed to be associated with a *class* (not an  
arbitrary object)

singleton class:
    has the wrong semantic 'direction' (from class to object)  
probably because:
    too much semantic overlap with the singleton pattern
    easily confused with the specific Singleton class in the standard  
library

adhoc class:
    too many negative connotations despite the useful latin root

eigen class:
    has the right semantic 'direction' (from object to class)
    'eigen', as a prefix/adjective, has an clear meaning that matches  
the
        semantics of (class <<self; self; end)
    long history of use in science, math, etc.
    it is easier to type object.eclass than (class <<object; self; end)


P.S.  I think one of the reasons we all still type (class <<object;  
self; end)
is that the terminology for the concept isn't "solid" yet.  Until you  
have
a solid, short, clear name it is pretty hard to add a standard method  
to Object
that returns this 'thing' we are talking about.


Gary Wright