From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2006-08-26T22:30:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Support for singleton_class() (was Re: Call functions of superclass)


ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Trans wrote:
>
> >
> > Justin Bailey wrote:
> >> On 8/23/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Aug 23, 2006, at 3:13 PM, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> # Sigh -- Matz, *please* can we have this? :-)
> >>>>> def singleton_class
> >>>>>   class << self; self; end
> >>>>> end
> >>
> >> +100 - please give us singleton_class!
> >>
> >>>
> >>> much better, imho, and used all over my own code is
> >>>
> >>>    def singleton_class &b
> >>>      sc = class << self; self; end
> >>>      b ? sc.module_eval &b : sc
> >>>    end
> >>>
> >>> obj = Object.new
> >>
> >> +1 to this implementation.
> >
> > At the very least, 'singleton_class' is too long. Just 'singleton'
> > would suffice.
> >
> > Alas, I wish we could just go back to 'metaclass'.
>
> i too would like a shorter namer, but singleton_class is in the source and has
> been for years.  momentum!  ;-)

So what wrong with just #singleton? That would be more reasible for
things like: 'singleton_class.module_eval' and
'singleton_class.class_eval', which would instead read simply:

  singleton.module_eval
  singleton.class_eval

> seriously though - the name comes up in google - and we all know how important
> that it for newbies!

Yeh. I relent.

T.