Le 8/5/2005, "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz / ruby-lang.org> a ñÄrit:
>Ilias,
>
>In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"
>    on Sun, 8 May 2005 04:09:28 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias / lazaridis.com> writes:
>
>|> 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".
>
>Not, in your diagram and definition, and not, in my explained language
>model.  But virtually everyone except us (me and you, Ilias) seem to
>have the other model in mind.  The object is an instance of the
>singleton class in that model.  It is also in the current
>implementation of the interpreter.  I'm thinking of changing the
>definition to confirm model in others' mind, since the other model.
>Under the new model, horizontal arrows in the object.c diagram mean
>instance-of relations.

People have a tendency to find complexity where there is none :)

As far as a new model goes, I would assume everyone will be
happy as long as one can metaprogram as easily as currently.

>The obstacle is that if I choose the new model, I have to name an
>official name to "singleton class", which I agree is not the best term
>for it.
>
>|> |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.
>
>Then please come back again when you find the name, preferably
>suitable under the new model.

Etymologically, 'idioclass' (as in an 'idiom') is probably the most
suitable choice [1]. There was also a poll of some sort on Rubyforge,
I think, if you want to see folks weighing in on their choice.

>							matz.

E

[1] http://www.etymology.com

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }