Kalman Noel wrote:
> >> It seems to me that it's impossible to invent a useful name for this
> >> method with the term ?eigen? in it, so a discussion should be possible
> >> without too much battle.
> > Interesting.  Why "eigen"?
>
> (NB: I wrote ?impossible?, not ?possible?.)  I intended to hint at the term
> ?eigenclass?, which is an example of a Ruby concept with more than one name.
> It naming sometimes enjoys heavy discussions.

To be clear, 'eigenclass' was one (popular) suggestion among many for
renaming the object you get when you write:
   foo = class << bar; self; end
that has historically most commonly been referred to as the 'singleton
class' of an object.

See http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/RenamingSingletonClass
for more names. :)