Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 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, 

My diagramm reflects the current OO-observable implementation of ruby 
(=reality).

> and not, in my explained language model.  

=> "explained language model", where?

> But virtually everyone except us (me and you, Ilias) seem to
> have the other model in mind.  

This is irrelevant.

Of course they have to adjust their minds to the _real_ existent model 
and implemented model (see "explained language model" and see diagramm)

> The object is an instance of the singleton class in that model.  

ok

> It is also in the current implementation of the interpreter.  

ok [internally, non observable.]

> I'm thinking of changing the
> definition to confirm model in others' mind, since the other model.

I sense a problem - but cannot explain it.

> Under the new model, horizontal arrows in the object.c diagram mean
> instance-of relations.

I understand.

> 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.

ok

> |> |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.

You sent me away to make this research myself?

I suggest Collaboration.

As you see, I open the results _and_ my understanding process thus 
others can benefit from it [although their ego won't mostly not let them 
admit this]

I depend on some answers to analytical questions to complete earlier.

I don't think that it would be fair to figure out things instead of 
simply asking them.

Please look at the new thread:

[ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/fc3ff9ed91d7a827

It would be nice if you could comment on the plans within this thread.

I could then prepare an updated diagramm.

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com