> It doesn't really bother me. But there is some confusion with
> the Singleton pattern, and with other similar usages.
> 
>> I'm sure this is an ongoing debate, and I don't want to tread on any  
>> beliefs, but I just thought I'd offer a perspective from a fresh pair 
>> of  eyes. Is there a serious movement to replace 'singleton'?
> 
> Some people want to change it, I think. If it must be changed, I
> would favor something like "singular class" (and I agree with your
> assessment of "ad hoc"). Some have suggested "eigenclass" -- and I
> admit this is a cool-sounding word, reminding me of my math and physics
> (and German) in college. But I can't really advocate it seriously.

Hal,

I think transfire (and rosco) were referring to singleton methods, not 
classes.  And, actually I totally agree with the points made by rosco. 
'Ad hoc' has too many negative connotations and singleton has a fairly 
unambiguous meaning.

A singleton class should appear to the consumer as a regular class, but 
under the skin always return the same instance.  How is this 
accomplished in Ruby?  It couldn't be done in initialize, could it 
(because initialize doesn't actually return an instance)?

--Jonathan

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.