Dave Thomas wrote:
> I wonder: is it a mistake to think of it as a class at all? Sure, it
> had a 'class' somewhere in its background, but is potentially moved
> on a lot since then. In a way, it's move analogous to a meta-binding,
> as it's the execution environment of an object. So, just to get the
> creative juices flowing, and in the spirit of brainstorming, how about
>
> obj.personality
>
> obj.capability
>
> obj.implementation

That's an great perspective. Perhaps even different enough to get us
out of this quagmire.

Seems to me that 80% of the time we want to use the "singleton class"
with class_eval. Expressions like "singleton_class.class_eval" are
rather redundant and long winded (IMHO). So maybe another single term
for this, along the lines of what you're saying, would be better.
Looking at Phrogz' wiki page of names I came up with:

  customize do
    ...
  end

Then the class could be called the 'customization'. Ie. the above being
equvalent to:

  customization.class_eval do
    ...
  end

T.