In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"
    on Sat, 7 May 2005 22:44:22 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias / lazaridis.com> writes:

|> I don't think other terms proposed such
|> as "exclusive class" are better.  
|
|even the term "bingo-bongo class" is better.

This statement implies you think avoiding name conflict is more
important than how terms describe the concept.  I think otherwise.

I should not have named my language "Ruby" if I followed your opinion;
perhaps, it would be "bingo-bongo".

|> I assume Ruby users smart enough to
|> deal with them by context until the time.
|
|There are newcomers.

I assume most of newcomers are capable to understand the term very
quick.  Am I too optimistic?

							matz.