On 5/8/05, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
>     on Sun, 8 May 2005 06:14:28 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias / lazaridis.com> writes:
> 
> |Another suggestion for the "Ruby Singleton Classes" or "Exclusive Classes":
> |
> |Sterile Classes
> 
> Sterile means "Not producing or incapable of producing offspring",
> right?  The word suggest the (class-like) object cannot create its
> instances.  But this is not the only class-like object in Ruby that
> can not (or should not) create its instances, for example, modules in
> Ruby are class-like objects which are not capable to instantiate.
> Abstract classes as well are classes not supposed to create their
> direct instances.
> 
> Being hidden from observable object model is not important neither.
> In the new model, it would not be hidden any more, and perhaps, there
> will be a method to retrieve "singleton class" from an object.  I hope
> the method name would not be Object#singleton_class.
> 
> I'd like to emphasize the "per-object" attribute of the object.
> Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where
> 
>   * xxxx describe the class is per-object.
>   * xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
>   * we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
>     methods for consistency.

unique, lone, solo, distinct, specific, custom, customized, changed,
expanded, crafted, decorated, tailored, adapted, adjusted,
transformed, modified.

any of these come close?
 
> In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
> conflict.  Sad coincidence.
> 
>                                                         matz.
> 
> 


-- 
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)