On Dec 8, 2005, at 3:45 PM, jonathan <zjll9 / imail.etsu.edu>  
<zjll9 / imail.etsu.edu> <zjll9 / imail.etsu.edu> wrote:
> What did you guys think about using simpleton to refer to these
> methods/classes?

I'd vote no on that name regardless.  If you think 'ad hoc' has
negative connotations...

>   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.

Are you confusing a class that has no instances (yet) with the class
returned by the expression (class <<obj; self; end) ?

I don't see anything particularly special or interesting about a class
with no instances (I *think* that is what you mean by a class
with 'only class methods and class data').  Certainly that isn't what
all the hubbub has been about regarding 'meta/eigen/singleton/shadow'.


Gary Wright