From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2005-12-08T11:29:33+09:00
Subject: Re: injecting dynamic methods into a class


On Dec 7, 2005, at 9:22 PM, jonathan <zjll9@imail.etsu.edu> wrote:

> 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/.
>

Well the easy way is

require 'singleton'
class IWantToBeASingleton
      include Singleton
end

And the slighlty harder way

class IAlsoAmASingleton
        class << self
                private :new
         end
        def self.instance
               @inst ||= new
        end
end