D. A. Black wrote:
> I think Matz is actually migrating from 'singleton class' to 'virtual
> class'.  I don't like that term very much (there's nothing really
> "virtual" about it; it's a real class, once it's created, and if it's
> not created, it's not even virtual), but it's probably a good idea to
> keep the terminology unified.

Interesting.  "It's a real class, once it's created, ..."  On what grounds
do you deem it to be a "real" class?

And if there were such a thing as a "virtual class", what would it be?

Cheers,
Gavin