transfire wrote:
> 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.

What did you guys think about using simpleton to refer to these 
methods/classes?  That way there can be differentiation between a class 
which was made single by 'include singleton' (that is, has one single 
instance somewhere) and a class which is made single (or simple) by 
having only class methods and class data.  The one which is an instance 
of the design pattern could be called 'singleton' (since it isn't the 
one in question anyway) and the other could be called 'simpleton'.

--J

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