Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"
>     on Sun, 8 May 2005 02:24:25 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias / lazaridis.com> writes:
> 
> |the term "singleton class" is still false.
> |
> |A "class" has instances.
> |
> |The "singleton class" has not.
> 
> I'm not sure what you meant.  

I'm sorry, I was not precise:

I meant:

The [Ruby] "singleton class" has not.

> If "singleton class" exists, it has an
> instance.  It would be an object of which the singleton class holds
> attributes.

But this object is _not_ an instance of the "singleton class".

There is a relation, but not an OO 'instance of' one.

Concretely, in the diagramm V1.3 this means:

"john" is an instance of class "Talker"
"john" has somehow a dependency to the "singleton class" (exclusive 
class) "class:talker:john"

http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/index.html

"class:talker:john" has _no_ observable instances.

[thus it's not a class, and thus "exclusive class" is somehow a bad naming]

> |You've integrated existing concepts [which have existing terminology].
> 
> Then tell me the "existing" term for this concept, which I failed to
> find in the past.  

I don't know it yet.

> I don't think "exclusive class" is it.

I agree with you, "exclusive class" isn't the perfect pick.

[although it comes close]

I've prepared a new thread with a new suggestion, but currently there's 
too much noise on the list.

I will post it later(~3h) or tomorrow (~ 20h).

> I'm not going to discuss about my personality.  It's too off topic
> here.

you have startet this with: "Am I too optimistic?"

and: essentially it's not off-topic (as your personality is directly 
related with this topic), but I will respect you wish.

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com