Hi --

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Trans wrote:

> About a year ago, I was having to decide what term to use in Facets, I
> included the ususal fair but wan't happy about having to have so many
> methods all for the same thing. So I tried to find a more suitable term
> that we all could generally agree on. I've tried out a few ideas, but
> none of them really worked. Around that time _why the lucky stiff came
> up with the term "eigenclass", and that has had some sticking power, no
> doubt in part due to the ingenius humor he can bring to things. I think
> it a fairly good term, and I think we should keep using it and even get
> a bit more serious about it, tough obviously it still lacks in certain
> respects.

This subject used to be approached in the spirit of making suggestions to
Matz, to help him in the process of coming up with a good replacement term
for "singleton class" if he decides to replace it.  For some reason it's
turned into people not only coining terms but actually using them publicly
as drop-in replacements, unremarked upon, for "singleton class."  The
result is that, de facto, there's no term any more, when there used to be
a perfectly serviceable term.  Instead there's a kind of smeared rainbow
of terms, and a lot of meta-explanations about why there's a smeared
rainbow instead of a term.

It's regrettable that the thing singled out for this strange treatment is
something that's often quite difficult for Ruby learners to understand
anyway.  Having to learn not only the mechanics of singleton classes, but
also a bunch of Ruby community lore about who uses what term, just so that
one can understand what various people are saying, seems to me to be
pretty tiresome.

Oh well -- obviously the shipped has sailed on this.  I just hope that if
Matz does make some kind of decision about it, people will actually pay
attention to it.


David

__
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net

"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!