Yukihiro Matsumoto 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.  

yes, the term "Sterile" was finally bad.

> Being hidden from observable object model is not important neither.

Clarification:

by hidden i mean
  * not reachable via standard OO-observations (obj.instance-of, class, 
superclass, ...)

> 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.

Can I have some more informatin about the new model?

  a) method to retrieve "singleton class", Object#singleton_class

further planned changes?

> I'd like to emphasize the "per-object" attribute of the object.
> Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where 

"xxxx" => "x"
=> "x class"
=> "xclass"

possibly we can agree temporarily "xclass", wher "x" stands for:

>   * 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.

the above is a nice template.

> In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
> conflict.  Sad coincidence.

I understand your 'pain' - honestly!

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com