David A. Black wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2005, Steven Jenkins wrote:
>> Has anyone suggested 'essential class'? The word 'essential' is often
>> used to mean 'indispensible', but 'constituting or being part of the
>> essence of something; inherent' seems like precisely what we're getting
>> at here.
> 
> Actually the singleton class embodies more the non-inherent -- i.e.,
> the acquired -- properties of a class.  I don't think one can acquire
> one's essence; one just has it.  And "essence" also, to me, suggests
> something permanent and unchanging in the midst, perhaps, of
> superficial change.  That too is not a good fit for the dynamic,
> in-the-moment singleton behavior of Ruby objects.

Well, sure, but no word means precisely that. As in all jargon, we need 
a word that's suggestive without being misleading. The real meaning 
doesn't come from the word itself; we're just trying to attach a 
convenient handle to a pre-existing meaning.

Steve