Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"
>     on Thu, 5 May 2005 00:05:10 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias / lazaridis.com> writes:
> 
> |"singleton class" has already a meaning within OOP.
> |like this: "a class which has only one instance"
> 
> According to the Design Pattern book, right?

I don't know this book.

> Interestingly, I started to use the term before the book was published
> in 1995.  Sad coincidence.

I understand.

But makes it any sense to insist on that?

Or makes it sense to change the terminology, thus it doesn't conflict 
with this:

http://www.google.com/search?q=singleton+class

ensuring this way a simpler teach-in to ruby?

Please act, and initialize a terminology change.

-

If you like, contact me via private email thus we can discuss the issue 
non-public.

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com