trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:

> On Monday 15 November 2004 01:23 pm, Florian Gross wrote:
> | trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> | > On Monday 15 November 2004 12:28 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> | > | I'd call them singleton classes.  Any objection?
> | > |
> | > |        matz.
> | >
> | > Yes, cause of singleton pattern.
> |
> | Objection to the objection: The singleton pattern is not widely used in
> | Ruby. Couldn't we rename the implementation of it? Maybe something like
> | "SingleInstanceClass"?
> 
> Well, I just used it. And the rest of the OOP world knows Singleton, yes?

What did you use it for and why would another name be a problem in your 
case?