Hi --

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, jonathan <zjll9 / imail.etsu.edu> <zjll9 / imail.etsu.edu> wrote:

> gwtmp01 wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2005, at 9:22 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>> Having many terms for the same thing isn't necessarily a bad
>>> thing.  It
>>> happens in every other aspect of programming as well (class methods
>>> are
>>> called 'member functions', 'methods', 'member methods', etc.).
>>
>> Yes but we don't have Class#member, Class#method, Class#member_method,
>> Class#attribute, and Class#feature, etc. in Ruby.  We have
>> Class#method and
>> that all by itself probably forces a canonical term for the concept.
>>
>
> Ahh.  Ok.  I think I also gathered from other posts that it also helps
> to be able to differentiate these for the purpose of error messages.
> Well, this may be a solution:
>
> Let the type of singleton which implements the singleton design pattern
> remain as a 'singleton' in error messaging and introspection.  But, let
> the class which is a singleton by having nothing but class methods be
> known as a simpleton.

Do you know what the word "simpleton" means?  It's really not a
candidate for a name for a language construct.

Anyway -- I'm trying to follow along but not sure what you mean by
classes that have nothing but class methods and class data.  Can you
give a code example of such a class?


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack / wobblini.net

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