From: "jonathan <zjll9@...>" <zjll9@...>
Date: 2005-12-08T11:22:02+09:00
Subject: Re: injecting dynamic methods into a class

jonathan wrote:
> transfire wrote:
>>> 'Ad hoc' has too many negative connotations and singleton has a fairly
>>> unambiguous meaning.
>> 
>> I felt the same way at first, until I started using it, keeping in mind
>> the strict definition --even the Latin definition: *for this*.
>> 
> 
> That's really interesting.  It's unfortunate that the most common use of 
> the term is a secondary meaning.  I guess using it will motivate people 
> to find out primary meaning.  I'm all for it. :)

Just to clarify (I hadn't finished reading all the posts when I made the 
above comment).  I don't mean to make my vote 'for' this term, but, I 
meant that I was for using a term in a way that educates.  Most of us 
are people that like to learn anyway. :)

Having many terms for the same thing isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It 
happens in every other aspect of programming as well (class methods are 
called 'member functions', 'methods', 'member methods', etc.).

How do you all think the term 'static class' fits?

Also, one more thing:

How do you actually implement the singleton pattern in Ruby?  Not being 
able to return a self ptr from initialize seems to stump me.

--Jonathan

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.