Mark Hubbart
5/4/2005 4:29:00 PM
On 5/4/05, Jim Weirich <jim@weirichhouse.org> wrote:
>
> David A. Black said:
> >> i believe the implementaion is correct iff the following statement is
> >> true:
> >>
> >> all meta-classes descend from the meta-class of Object.
> >
> > I fear the terminology issue raises its head here. Is there any
> > reason not to use the customary "singleton class", pending some
> > pronouncement from Matz that it's no longer the right term?
>
> There is a distinction, although some people blur it. Those things that
> are almost metaclasses (but aren't because Ruby doesn't have metaclasses)
> are a subset of all singleton classes. As noted, these almost-metaclasses
> inherit from the almost-metaclass of Object. These almost-metaclasses are
> the singleton classes of Class objects.
>
> All almost-metaclasses are singleton classes. Not all singleton classes
> are almost-metaclasses.
All the more reason to give them a different name... At this point, I
care very little what they're called; virtual class, idioclass, own
class, whatever. Just give us a nice, non-overlapping name to call
them by. I guess singleton class will have to do until then, though...
With all these different names being thrown around, it feels like an
election year again! :)
cheers,
Mark