dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
> P.S. Aside to Tom S.: I agree it's ad hoc in the sense of being for a
> specific purpose, but I'm not sure I agree that it's ad hoc where the
> "hoc" (actually the "hic", I guess, in the nominative case :-) is the
> object itself.  One then runs into questions like: are instance
> variables "ad hoc" variables?  etc.

Interesting. Perhaps we've met halfway then. 'Ad hoc' is an excellent
discriptive term, but in trying it on for size some more, so to speak,
I'm not as certain that it makes a good *techncal* term, not because of
negative conotations, but because it may be too generic, much like
'meta'. Which I think it is what you're pointing out here. Of course,
this might be a problem with any term that doesn't already have a
fitting techincal meaning.

T.