From: "jonathan <zjll9@...> <zjll9@...>" <zjll9@...>
Date: 2005-12-08T15:46:51+09:00
Subject: Re: injecting dynamic methods into a class

gwtmp01 wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2005, at 9:22 PM, jonathan wrote:
>> 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.).
> 
> Yes but we don't have Class#member, Class#method, Class#member_method,
> Class#attribute, and Class#feature, etc. in Ruby.  We have
> Class#method and
> that all by itself probably forces a canonical term for the concept.
> 

Ahh.  Ok.  I think I also gathered from other posts that it also helps 
to be able to differentiate these for the purpose of error messages. 
Well, this may be a solution:

Let the type of singleton which implements the singleton design pattern 
remain as a 'singleton' in error messaging and introspection.  But, let 
the class which is a singleton by having nothing but class methods be 
known as a simpleton.

In essence, from the outside, they look the same (and please correct me 
if I'm wrong because I don't know all the Ruby syntax yet, but in 
essence I think they are the same).  Simpleton and singleton are 
synonyms as far as I know.  And, these two ways of arriving at a 
singleton produce the same effect for the consumer (but differentiating 
them is nice for error messaging and introspection).

--Jonathan

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