Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 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.  

Avoiding name conflict is essential for any recognition process.

This is too essential to even discuss it here.

> I think otherwise.

even if:

the term "singleton class" is still false.

A "class" has instances.

The "singleton class" has not.

> I should not have named my language "Ruby" 

this is not "your" language.

You've integrated existing concepts [which have existing terminology].

Possibly you've added new concepts (without researching enouth to find 
concise new terminology).

[of course there's the possibility, that the plan was to implement e.g. 
real "metaclasses", but you've failed to do so. Then you have to clarify 
this]

> if I followed your opinion;

"Ruby" was not used in the Domain (or Namespace) "Programming Languages".

Thus you was free to name it "Ruby".

> perhaps, it would be "bingo-bongo".

This is nonsense.

> |> 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?

no.

Just too egocentric.

Perhaps a little bit stubborn?

Maybe arrogant?

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com