From: dblack@...
Date: 2005-12-08T05:29:50+09:00
Subject: Re: injecting dynamic methods into a class

Hi --

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Martin DeMello wrote:

> dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Martin DeMello wrote:
>>
>> Not quite:
>>
>>    ruby -ve 'class << 3; end'
>>    ruby 1.9.0 (2005-05-20) [i686-linux]
>>    -e:1: no singleton class for Fixnum (TypeError)
>
> A very palpable hit :)
>
>>
>> :-)  Also, with Matz discussing it so much, I'd put it in the category
>> of having official-name status.
>>
>> But I know what you mean about jargon.  Just as people call objects
>> "underlying thingies" and so forth, there's no particular reason for
>> people not to use a term like "own class" or "eigenclass" (or "class a
>> soi", if they want to translate it into yet another language :-)
>> descriptively.  It's just that the burgeoning usage and positioning of
>> some of these terms have been unfortunate, in relation to the process
>> already underway.
>
> But IMO this is the only real way to make sure that, when we do
> standardise on a term, it's a good one.

Or at least a frequently-used one :-)  I know it's possible to discuss
something to death, and it's possible that this has happened with
singleton-class renaming already.  But consider that someone just
coming across a reference to "Ruby's eigenclasses" (or whatever) isn't
even going to know that there's any history, discussion, uncertainty
-- basically, isn't going to know that there's any reason to think
about whether the term is or is not a good one.  They'll just accept
the term and start propagating it -- which, therefore, doesn't count
as a "vote", so to speak.

Also, the standard that's really emerging is the standard practice of
calling singleton classes by many different names.  Maybe we should
just embrace this.  It might lead to more publicity than choosing one
name :-)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net

"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!