On 8/10/06, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
> Hal Fulton wrote:
> > But "nonce" does carry a strong connotation of "one-time usage."
> Honestly. Have you ever even used the work _nonce_ in your entire life?

Yes.

It's actually a relatively common term in cryptographic references,
IIRC. The cryptographic nonce is some (random?) string that is used
once and only once (it doesn't repeat and it isn't typically
predictable) and typically in a challenge/response identification
protocol.

http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nonce+(cryptography)
http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_nonce.html

IMO, TFD has semi-backronymed nonce here, ignoring that there's an
English word, but TFD tends to do that.

> Right. So how "strong" can any connotation possibly be? The idea here
> is clearly to give it a new connotation --that's the point. With
> Singleton, it's not just a connotation but rather a complete
> redefinition of an already accepted term in OOP parlance.

I agree with you that 'nonce' is close to what we want, but it isn't
*quite* meaningful enough on its own.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca