Matt Armstrong wrote:
> matz / ruby-lang.org (Yukihiro Matsumoto) writes:
> 
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>In message "Re: Symbols: More Functionality Wanted"
>>    on 03/01/24, Matt Armstrong <matt / lickey.com> writes:
>>
>>|> Binding#add doesn't sound right if the symbol you're binding already
>>|> has a binding.
>>|
>>|The problem is that Binding is the wrong name for the class.  A
>>|variable binding associates a variable with a value, but the Binding
>>|class represents a collection of bindings.  E.g. this seems right:
>>|
>>|    Binding.new(symbol, value)
>>
>>I consider "binding" as "a collection of bindings" in your term.
>>For example, when we say "Emacs key binding", it means "a collection
>>of key-function bindings very similar to one of Emacs".  Am I wrong?
> 
> 
> I think so.  That sounds strange in English.  It is like saying an
> "object" is a "collection of objects."

I think it's ok to use "binding" this way. Let's look at another word 
that has similar usage. The word "association" can be used in both the 
collective and individual sense:

   The association between the variable 'x' and its value 2.

   The association between the currently defined variables and their
   values.

In the latter case it is clear (is it?) that we are not talking about an 
association between one set and another, but about an association 
between pairs. The words "binding" and "mapping" feel the same to me.

This may be a question for grammarians, but it seems like the words 
"binding" and "association" both describe the result of a process (which 
may involve one or more things), whereas "object" does not, so the 
analogy is not apt.

But I'm not a grammarian, so I could be just a confused native speaker....