[ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes
Ilias Lazaridis
Sterile Classes
Class: keeps structure and behaviour
Sterile: cannot create ( instances / objects )
The Term is currently unassigned:
http://www.google.com/search?q=sterile+classes
-
Concept of a "Sterile Class":
A Sterile Class is a Class, with all the abilities of the languages
Classes, exept:
* It cannot be instantiated.
* It is not part of the observable object-model
In Ruby, Sterile Classes are used to change the behaviour of _one_ object.
The Sterile Class
* becomes _not_ part of the observable inheritance-chain.
* e.g.: cannot be reached via
obj.class,
obj.superclass,
obj.instance_of [...]
* _becomes_ part of the non-observable inheritance-chain.
* e.g.: method-resolution looks _first_ at the "Sterile Class"
* internal implementation
[Thus, "Pseudo Class" would be possibly a right term, too - but already
used within CSS domain]
-
please look at the 1.3 version of the Diagramm:
http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/
"john" has an "Exclusive Sterile Class"
"john" is an instance of "Talker"
"john" has _no_ observable relation to its "Exclusive Sterile Class"
[observable via OOAD]
=> "[Exclusive] Sterile Class"
=> "Sterile Class"
-
"Talker" has an "Sterile Class" (Class:Talker)
"Class:Talker" keeps the structure and behaviour of class Talker.
thus "Class:Talker" is the "MetaClass" of class Talker.
=> MetaClass
but Talker is an instance of class "Class".
the MetaClass "Class:Talker" has no instances.
=> "Sterile Meta Class"
-
The terminology depends finally on the further development direction of
Ruby.
If it is planned to make the object model more OO like, and to implement
_real_ metaclasses, then it would be enouth to say:
"Attention: In the current implementation, a Ruby MetaClass is based on
"Sterile Classes". Although they describe structure and behaviour of a
Class, they do not instantiate those classes. They are _not_ part of the
inheritance-tree and thus _not_ part of the object-model. That's why the
documentation referes them as "Sterile Meta Classes" "
.
Saynatkari
Le 7/5/2005, "Ilias Lazaridis" <il...@lazaridis.com> blathered:
[snipped]
I wholeheartedly encourage you to find out more about sterilization.
E
--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }
Thomas Adam
--- Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
> Another suggestion for the "Ruby Singleton Classes" or "Exclusive
> Classes":
>
> Sterile Classes
Hmm. "Sterile" is not the first word I'd have used -- it has a more
widely-known meaning for one who is unable to reproduce. I personally
prefer either "Excusive" or "Singleton". But that's just me.
Incidentally, I like your hierarchy diagram.
-- Thomas Adam
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Logan Capaldo
[...]
> * It cannot be instantiated.
> but Talker is an instance of class "Class".
> the MetaClass "Class:Talker" has no instances.
Regarding SCs (heh, one acronym fits your terminology and the current
terminology) not having instances, while not present in Ruby their is
the idea of the <a
href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbstractClass">abstract class</a>, (seen
only in C++ AFAIK, although Java's interfaces are similiar in some
respects) which has no instances. This doesn't (debately) make it less
of a class however. Plus one can consider an instance to be some state
(represented by instance variables) and a pointer to the instatiated
classes method lookup table (not sure of the right terminology here).
Then one would would have to consider the instance to be the object
that the SC is an SC of.
Bill Atkins
--
Bill Atkins
Jon A. Lambert
> Le 7/5/2005, "Ilias Lazaridis" <il...@lazaridis.com> blathered:
> [snipped]
>
> I wholeheartedly encourage you to find out more about sterilization.
>
It depends on whether this has a double meaning. Has science discovered a
troll gene? Nature or nurture?
As you might guess I lean towards the nurture side.
On the other meaning...
In the ColdC language, well ColdCore library to be more specific, objects
that are "spawnable" have a "fertile" attribute attached to them. There's
no such thing as a "class" though, just pure objects. Spawned objects
inherit from their parents, while "cloned" objects are siblings in the
inheritance tree. The absence of the "fertile" symbol is similar to Java's
'final'.
--
J Lambert
Nikolai Weibull
[blah]
What does this have to do with etymology? I don't think you know what
the word "etymology" means. Please refrain from using terms
incorrectly in the future. Thanks,
nikolai
--
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
Jon A. Lambert
> Ilias Lazaridis, May 8:
>
> [blah]
>
> What does this have to do with etymology? I don't think you know what
> the word "etymology" means. Please refrain from using terms
> incorrectly in the future. Thanks,
> nikolai
Mmm... chewy etyms
singleton - an unmarried unattached person - circa 1930's
singleton also refers to a single card of a suit in one's dealt hand in
whist - 1876
single - Old French - sengle "one, separate" - 1300's
Latin singulus "one individual, separate"
Latin diminutive of sim- (stem of simplus) - "simple"
related to simpleton - which brings us full circle and back to Ilias
Lazardis - 2005
;-)
--
J Lambert
Ilias Lazaridis
> --- Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
>>Another suggestion for the "Ruby Singleton Classes" or "Exclusive
>>Classes":
>>
>>Sterile Classes
>
> Hmm. "Sterile" is not the first word I'd have used -- it has a more
> widely-known meaning for one who is unable to reproduce.
yes, in context of a class, this becomes true.
but you are right:
"unable to reproduce" vs. "unable to produce".
non-instantiatable class.
Class-intantiated-to-> Object
Object->gets-Class-attached
Reverse Class?
no.
> I personally
> prefer either "Excusive" or "Singleton". But that's just me.
"Singleton" has already a meaning, thus "Exclusive" remains.
> Incidentally, I like your hierarchy diagram.
thanks a lot.
.
Thomas Adam
> yes, in context of a class, this becomes true.
>
> but you are right:
>
> "unable to reproduce" vs. "unable to produce".
Indeed. But even then, in the latter "definiton" as you have it, it is
not true of the word 'sterile'. It's only applicable in terms of
reproduction. So I wouldn't use it at all.
> non-instantiatable class.
Well, does the name have to be unique from other languages? I mean if
one were to use the term "Abstract" -- taken from Java, it's
immediately obvious that such a class cannot be instantiated to form an
object. Admittedly in Java this is only in relation to inheritance,
but the meaning is still evident.
Ilias Lazaridis
> On 5/7/05, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> * It cannot be instantiated.
>
> [..]
>
>>but Talker is an instance of class "Class".
>>the MetaClass "Class:Talker" has no instances.
>
> Regarding SCs (heh, one acronym fits your terminology and the current
> terminology) not having instances, while not present in Ruby their is
> the idea of the <a
> href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AbstractClass">abstract class</a>, (seen
> only in C++ AFAIK, although Java's interfaces are similiar in some
> respects) which has no instances.
yes, you are right.
there's a collision.
But possibly the term "Abstract Class" is the foundation for a solution.
Dynamic Abstract Class.
> This doesn't (debately) make it less
> of a class however. Plus one can consider an instance to be some state
> (represented by instance variables) and a pointer to the instatiated
> classes method lookup table (not sure of the right terminology here).
> Then one would would have to consider the instance to be the object
> that the SC is an SC of.
I do not understand exactly.
but the essence is in the above about "abstract".
.
Yukihiro Matsumoto
on Sun, 8 May 2005 06:14:28 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> writes:
|Another suggestion for the "Ruby Singleton Classes" or "Exclusive Classes":
|
|Sterile Classes
Sterile means "Not producing or incapable of producing offspring",
right? The word suggest the (class-like) object cannot create its
instances. But this is not the only class-like object in Ruby that
can not (or should not) create its instances, for example, modules in
Ruby are class-like objects which are not capable to instantiate.
Abstract classes as well are classes not supposed to create their
direct instances.
Being hidden from observable object model is not important neither.
In the new model, it would not be hidden any more, and perhaps, there
will be a method to retrieve "singleton class" from an object. I hope
the method name would not be Object#singleton_class.
I'd like to emphasize the "per-object" attribute of the object.
Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where
* xxxx describe the class is per-object.
* xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
* we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
methods for consistency.
In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
conflict. Sad coincidence.
matz.
Ilias Lazaridis
> --- Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
>
>>yes, in context of a class, this becomes true.
>>
>>but you are right:
>>
>>"unable to reproduce" vs. "unable to produce".
>
> Indeed. But even then, in the latter "definiton" as you have it, it is
> not true of the word 'sterile'. It's only applicable in terms of
> reproduction. So I wouldn't use it at all.
provisionally agreed.
>>non-instantiatable class.
>
> Well, does the name have to be unique from other languages? I mean if
> one were to use the term "Abstract" -- taken from Java, it's
> immediately obvious that such a class cannot be instantiated to form an
> object. Admittedly in Java this is only in relation to inheritance,
> but the meaning is still evident.
this fits to: "cannot be instantiated".
but: "* It is not part of the observable object-model "
this is not covered by "Abstract Class".
-
"Hidden Abstract Class".
"Mapped Abstract Class"
"Mapped Exclusive Class"
"Overlay Class"
...
Overlay Class.
don't know, possibly need a break.
.
Bill Guindon
unique, lone, solo, distinct, specific, custom, customized, changed,
expanded, crafted, decorated, tailored, adapted, adjusted,
transformed, modified.
any of these come close?
> In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
> conflict. Sad coincidence.
>
> matz.
>
>
--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
Thomas Adam
Oh, it wasn't conditional, Ilias. Sterile's meaning is rooted in
infertility.
> Overlay Class.
> don't know, possibly need a break.
Quite. But overlay? No, that would suggest a relationship with an
object -- even perhaps in terms of replaceability. Hmm, "Mapped
Abstract Class" is "better", but seems a little terse.
Ah well, I'm sure thoughts will prevail.
Ilias Lazaridis
> In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
> on Sun, 8 May 2005 06:14:28 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> writes:
>
> |Another suggestion for the "Ruby Singleton Classes" or "Exclusive Classes":
> |
> |Sterile Classes
>
> Sterile means "Not producing or incapable of producing offspring",
> right? The word suggest the (class-like) object cannot create its
> instances. But this is not the only class-like object in Ruby that
> can not (or should not) create its instances, for example, modules in
> Ruby are class-like objects which are not capable to instantiate.
> Abstract classes as well are classes not supposed to create their
> direct instances.
yes, the term "Sterile" was finally bad.
> Being hidden from observable object model is not important neither.
Clarification:
by hidden i mean
* not reachable via standard OO-observations (obj.instance-of, class,
superclass, ...)
> In the new model, it would not be hidden any more, and perhaps, there
> will be a method to retrieve "singleton class" from an object. I hope
> the method name would not be Object#singleton_class.
Can I have some more informatin about the new model?
a) method to retrieve "singleton class", Object#singleton_class
further planned changes?
> I'd like to emphasize the "per-object" attribute of the object.
> Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where
"xxxx" => "x"
=> "x class"
=> "xclass"
possibly we can agree temporarily "xclass", wher "x" stands for:
> * xxxx describe the class is per-object.
> * xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
> * we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
> methods for consistency.
the above is a nice template.
> In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
> conflict. Sad coincidence.
I understand your 'pain' - honestly!
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> Ilias Lazaridis, May 8:
>
> [blah]
>
> What does this have to do with etymology? I don't think you know what
> the word "etymology" means. Please refrain from using terms
> incorrectly in the future. Thanks,
> nikolai
You cannot find concise terms without etymology.
[but I agree that a usenet forum is possibly not the best place]
.
Ryan Leavengood
it may be because I thought of it :)
Ryan
Ilias Lazaridis
>>I'd like to emphasize the "per-object" attribute of the object.
>>Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where
>>
>> * xxxx describe the class is per-object.
>> * xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
>> * we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
>> methods for consistency.
>
>
> unique, lone, solo, distinct, specific, custom, customized, changed,
> expanded, crafted, decorated, tailored, adapted, adjusted,
> transformed, modified.
>
> any of these come close?
"Custom"
Custom Class
Object#custom_class
custom methods
custom attributes
-
"Tailored"
Tailored Class
Object#tailoredClass
tailored methods
tailored attributes
.
Sean O'Dell
term "shadow class" would have gone a long way towards helping to clarify
what it was. I like this term, if only for that reason.
Sean
craig duncan
> I'd like to emphasize the "per-object" attribute of the object.
> Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where
>
> * xxxx describe the class is per-object.
> * xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
> * we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
> methods for consistency.
>
> In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
> conflict. Sad coincidence.
>
> matz.
I would assume that this has already been considered and (long ago) discarded.
But from my understanding (which may not be adequate) "instance_class" most
clearly describes it to me.
craig
Glenn Parker
>
> Sterile means "Not producing or incapable of producing offspring",
> right? The word suggest the (class-like) object cannot create its
> instances.
Mind you, when Ilias is active in a thread, I generally delete it
without a second look. So, I honestly don't expect many people to see
this, but since Matz is still looking for meaningful terminology...
I humbly suggest "uniclass". Sounds sort of like "eunuch-class",
implying sterility, and also like "unique-class", which follows because
there is at most one of these per object. It also reminds me of
"Unibrow" from the Austin Powers series, but that is neither here nor there.
--
Glenn Parker | glenn.parker-AT-comcast.net | <http://www.tetrafoil.com/>
Chris Pine
> Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where
>
> * xxxx describe the class is per-object.
> * xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
> * we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
> methods for consistency.
How about "self"?
"self class"
"self methods"
obj.self_class
or "solo"?
"solo class"
"solo methods"
obj.solo_class
Chris
ES
I would say to call it #id, but that is already taken :)
#ego might be a possibility, too. Then we have:
#idioclass, #idiom
idiom
1) "form of speech peculiar to a people or place,"
from M.Fr. idiome, from L.L. idioma
2) "a peculiarity in language," <---------
from Gk. idioma
3) "peculiarity, peculiar phraseology,"
from idioumai "I make my own,"
from idios "personal, private," <---------
prop. “particular to oneself,” <---------
from PIE *swed-yo-, suffixed form of base *s(w)e-,
...
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=idiom)
>Chris
Carlos
[...]
> I'd like to emphasize the "per-object" attribute of the object.
> Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where
>
> * xxxx describe the class is per-object.
> * xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
> * we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
> methods for consistency.
"Particular"?
(In Spanish it fits perfectly, but maybe is a false friend...)
Hal Fulton
I think it almost fits.
If we use such an adjective, I would favor something like:
- unique
- individual
- solitary
Hal
Andy Stone
Yukihiro Matsumoto
In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
on Mon, 9 May 2005 05:18:05 +0900, Hal Fulton <hal...@hypermetrics.com> writes:
|If we use such an adjective, I would favor something like:
|
| - unique
| - individual
| - solitary
Others proposed (forgive me for not mentioning your names, pals):
- singular
- solo
- particular
- self
- ideoclass
- uniclass
- instance
- custom
- tailored
- lone
- distinct
- specific
- customized
- changed
- expanded
- crafted
- decorated
- tailored
- adapted
- adjusted
- transformed
- modified
I think a few of them pass the test. For example, I like the word
"specific", but the term "specific class" seems to have different
implication in the English language. The "instance class" may cause
confusion with the term "instance method".
So if I choose from above, candidates would be:
- individual class / individual method (sounds nice; I don't think
of any confusion by the term; not sure how English speakers feel,
but I think I can trust Hal)
- uniclass (totally new term for new idea)
- singleton class / singleton method (yes, I still believe in
context ;-)
Thank you for participating. We are still open.
matz.
Yukihiro Matsumoto
In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
on Mon, 9 May 2005 00:39:23 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> writes:
|Can I have some more informatin about the new model?
|
| a) method to retrieve "singleton class", Object#singleton_class
|
|further planned changes?
No other language change is planned. I guess I have to rewrite some
documents as well.
|> In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
|> conflict. Sad coincidence.
|
|I understand your 'pain' - honestly!
Thank you. Making up terms are far more difficult than others think
at their first glance.
matz.
David A. Black
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
> on Mon, 9 May 2005 05:18:05 +0900, Hal Fulton <hal...@hypermetrics.com> writes:
>
> |If we use such an adjective, I would favor something like:
> |
> | - unique
> | - individual
> | - solitary
>
> Others proposed (forgive me for not mentioning your names, pals):
But can I forgive you for not mentioning my idea? :-) It was "own
class". I guess it's not still on the radar? I don't really care,
though it did have some positive reactions.
David
--
David A. Black
dbl...@wobblini.net
David A. Black
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> - ideoclass
(Actually it was "idioclass".)
Bill Atkins
reflexive adj. directed back to itself
On 5/8/05, Yukihiro Matsumoto <ma...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
--
Bill Atkins
Bill Guindon
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> >
> > Sterile means "Not producing or incapable of producing offspring",
> > right? The word suggest the (class-like) object cannot create its
> > instances.
>
> Mind you, when Ilias is active in a thread, I generally delete it
> without a second look. So, I honestly don't expect many people to see
> this, but since Matz is still looking for meaningful terminology...
>
> I humbly suggest "uniclass". Sounds sort of like "eunuch-class",
> implying sterility, and also like "unique-class", which follows because
> there is at most one of these per object. It also reminds me of
> "Unibrow" from the Austin Powers series, but that is neither here nor there.
+1
'unique' and 'custom' were my favorites, but I like the idea of a new
word, and the mnemonics you offered.
> --
> Glenn Parker | glenn.parker-AT-comcast.net | <http://www.tetrafoil.com/>
>
>
Ilias Lazaridis
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
> on Mon, 9 May 2005 00:39:23 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> writes:
>
> |Can I have some more informatin about the new model?
> |
> | a) method to retrieve "singleton class", Object#singleton_class
> |
> |further planned changes?
>
> No other language change is planned. I guess I have to rewrite some
> documents as well.
you wrote in the other thread:
"I'm thinking of changing thedefinition to confirm model in others'
mind, since the other model. Under the new model, horizontal arrows in
the object.c diagram mean instance-of relations."
This would be important to know - and it's important for the terminology.
If you are not sure yet - no problem.
[If the thread continues thus clean and productive, I'll have in
estimated 3 to 5 days the ability to give more concrete feedback
regarding the model]
> |> In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
> |> conflict. Sad coincidence.
> |
> |I understand your 'pain' - honestly!
>
> Thank you. Making up terms are far more difficult than others think
> at their first glance.
Yes, I agree.
It's as difficult as it's important.
-
btw: I operate myself with my own terminology during the creation phase:
"
* The terminology is not yet aligned to commonly used business or
standards organisation terminology [like e.g. ISO].
* This will happen after the process definition has finalized.
"
http://lazaridis.com/efficiency/definitions.html
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> In the new model, it would not be hidden any more, and perhaps, there
> will be a method to retrieve "singleton class" from an object. I hope
> the method name would not be Object#singleton_class.
>
> Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where
>
> * xxxx describe the class is per-object.
> * xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
> * we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
> methods for consistency.
this results in the following template, where you can insert the
suggested word:
-
instructions:
* <x> emphasize on the "per-object" characteristic of the object
* <x> describes that the class is per-object
* <x> is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like an adjective.
* "<x> methods" replaces todays term "singleton methods"
Test Code:
obj.<x>_class
obj.<x>_methods
obj.<x>_attributes
-
Usage of the template simplifies the evaluation of the new <x> term.
.
speechexpert
I am looking for a way to customize emacs for Ruby - I have not been able to
get syntax high-lighting working, but irb and xmp are working.
Any info on this?
I have been watching discussion of editors "dog fight:"
1. jump into ring and throw dirt on other editors.
2. Engage in snarling dog fight about favorite editors
3. foam at mouth and whirl around in a circle
4. collapse in exhausted heap
;D
Any info on customizing emacs or other editors sought...
John B
Dr Balwinder S Dheeman
> I'd like to emphasize the "per-object" attribute of the object.
> Ideally, the term should be "xxxx class" where
>
> * xxxx describe the class is per-object.
> * xxxx is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like adjective.
> * we can call methods now we call "singleton methods" as xxxx
> methods for consistency.
>
> In this standard, "singleton" is the best I can think of, unless name
> conflict. Sad coincidence.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Abstract \Ab"stract`\, n. [See {Abstract}, a.]
1. That which comprises or concentrates in itself the
essential qualities of a larger thing or of several
things. Specifically: A summary or an epitome, as of a
treatise or book, or of a statement; a brief.
[1913 Webster]
An abstract of every treatise he had read. --Watts.
[1913 Webster]
Man, the abstract
Of all perfection, which the workmanship
Of Heaven hath modeled. --Ford.
[1913 Webster]
2. A state of separation from other things; as, to consider a
subject in the abstract, or apart from other associated
things.
[1913 Webster]
3. An abstract term.
[1913 Webster]
The concretes "father" and "son" have, or might
have, the abstracts "paternity" and "filiety." --J.
S. Mill.
[1913 Webster]
So as per 2nd definition above, how is about...
'abstract class'
'abstract objects'
'abstract methods'
Hope that helps.
--
Dr Balwinder Singh Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
CLLO (Chief Linux Learning Officer) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Anu's Linux@HOME Distros: Ubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix
More: http://anu.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/
kyu
Are you using GNU emacs? Try www.xemacs.org, install that and then untar
xemacs-sumo-xx.gz into /usr/local/lib/xemacs/ and add (load "font
lock") to your .emacs. Works real nice for me :) Also, if you do this
make sure to check out eshell and M-x ecb-activate for an even better
de. Hope this helps a bit. But it probabally won't. :/
-kyu
Ryan Leavengood
>
> So as per 2nd definition above, how is about...
>
> 'abstract class'
> 'abstract objects'
> 'abstract methods'
>
> Hope that helps.
I think that has a greater chance of confusion than the current
"singleton class" naming. Abstract class in the larger sense of OO
programming is very much unlike the Ruby constructs we are discussing.
Ryan
Bill Atkins
you've set values for the faces. For instance, put this in your
emacs file:
(custom-set-faces
'(default
((t (:family "arial" :size 10 :foreground "white" :background "black"))) t)
'(font-lock-string-face ((t (:foreground "green" :bold t))))
'(font-lock-variable-name-face ((t (:foreground "magenta" :bold t))))
'(font-lock-keyword-face ((t (:foreground "red" :bold t))))
'(font-lock-type-face ((t (:foreground "CadetBlue" :bold t))))
'(font-lock-comment-face
((t (:background "darkgreen" :foreground "white" :size "6"))))
'(font-lock-function-name-face ((t (:foreground "orange" :bold t)))))
Hope that helps.
--
Bill Atkins
Ilias Lazaridis
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
> on Mon, 9 May 2005 05:18:05 +0900, Hal Fulton <hal...@hypermetrics.com> writes:
>
> |If we use such an adjective, I would favor something like:
> |
> | - unique
> | - individual
> | - solitary
>
> Others proposed (forgive me for not mentioning your names, pals):
Can someone possibly create a page with the entries below and the
template on the central ruby-wiki?
"
instructions:
* <x> emphasize on the "per-object" characteristic of the object
* <x> describes that the class is per-object
* <x> is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like an adjective.
* "<x> methods" replaces todays term "singleton methods"
Test Code:
obj.<x>_class
obj.<x>_methods
obj.<x>_attributes
-
Usage of the template simplifies the evaluation of the new <x> term.
.
"
<x> candidates:
Ilias Lazaridis
> --- Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
>>provisionally agreed.
>
> Oh, it wasn't conditional, Ilias. Sterile's meaning is rooted in
> infertility.
yes, but _I_ just provisinally agreed (I need some time to decouple
mentally from the term I've 'created')
but now I'm ready:
agreed.
>>Overlay Class.
>>don't know, possibly need a break.
>
> Quite. But overlay? No, that would suggest a relationship with an
> object -- even perhaps in terms of replaceability. Hmm, "Mapped
> Abstract Class" is "better", but seems a little terse.
>
> Ah well, I'm sure thoughts will prevail.
Yes, the thread looks good.
I'll take now a break for a day or two, and will then look closer to the
collected terms.
.
Yukihiro Matsumoto
In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
on Mon, 9 May 2005 06:05:47 +0900, "David A. Black" <dbl...@wobblini.net> writes:
|> Others proposed (forgive me for not mentioning your names, pals):
|
|But can I forgive you for not mentioning my idea? :-)
Oops.
|It was "own
|class". I guess it's not still on the radar? I don't really care,
|though it did have some positive reactions.
Somehow I missed that. Sorry.
I think I have to set up a Wiki page.
matz.
Austin Ziegler
> Dr Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:
> > So as per 2nd definition above, how is about...
> > 'abstract class'
> > 'abstract objects'
> > 'abstract methods'
> "singleton class" naming. Abstract class in the larger sense of OO
> programming is very much unlike the Ruby constructs we are discussing.
And, the singleton class of an object is anything but abstract -- it
is an inherent part of the object's existence.
-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halos...@gmail.com
* Alternate: aus...@halostatue.ca
Logan Capaldo
Just to throw in another one, perhaps "personal class"?
craig duncan
<long list of possible name and other thoughts snipped>
> Thank you for participating. We are still open.
>
> matz.
Ok... here's my last play, then i'm out. How about instance_attrs?
craig
Ilias Lazaridis
this method is privat - to the object
this method is inherited - from the superclass
this method is exclusive - to the object
this method is singleton - [...]
-
time to sleep.
-
Thank you very much for the productive feedback.
.
Jon A. Lambert
> - singular
> - solo
> - particular
> - self
> - ideoclass
> - uniclass
> - instance
> - custom
> - tailored
> - lone
> - distinct
> - specific
> - customized
> - changed
> - expanded
> - crafted
> - decorated
> - tailored
> - adapted
> - adjusted
> - transformed
> - modified
>
mataclass - sounds meta and but eponymously named.
Terminology derived from tired old words is boring.
--
J Lambert
Hal Fulton
[snip]
>
> I think a few of them pass the test. For example, I like the word
> "specific", but the term "specific class" seems to have different
> implication in the English language. The "instance class" may cause
> confusion with the term "instance method".
>
> So if I choose from above, candidates would be:
>
> - individual class / individual method (sounds nice; I don't think
> of any confusion by the term; not sure how English speakers feel,
> but I think I can trust Hal)
> - uniclass (totally new term for new idea)
> - singleton class / singleton method (yes, I still believe in
> context ;-)
>
> Thank you for participating. We are still open.
I did not realize the list was so long.
Some of these I might like better than any of my own.
The problem with many/most of these is that they have common
English meanings and may not be recognized as jargon.
That is the case with "specific" and is likely the case with
"individual" too -- except that in English we rarely use
five syllables, except as jargon, when we can help it.
If you don't understand the distinction I am making between
"technical" usage and "normal" usage, consider the word
"regular" -- in normal usage it can mean "ordinary" but in
math or geometry it has a more specific meaning.
So in that sense, "individual" might still be a bad choice.
Matter of opinion.
It reminds me of the old days when BASIC was a common first
language. Sometimes a person would say, "I want to take a
basic programming class," and the other person would hear,
"I want to take a BASIC programming class" (or vice versa).
Hal
Martin DeMello
> - uniclass (totally new term for new idea)
I like the idea of using a single, invented word rather than a two word
phrase, since we avoid overloaded associations from other languages and
contexts. Thus far:
uniclass
idioclass
eigenclass
martin
Yukihiro Matsumoto
In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
on Mon, 9 May 2005 08:00:42 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto <ma...@ruby-lang.org> writes:
|I think I have to set up a Wiki page.
I was lost in finding proper place in RubyGarden Wiki. Sigh.
Can someone create a new page there please?
matz.
Yukihiro Matsumoto
In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
on Mon, 9 May 2005 06:39:24 +0900, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> writes:
|you wrote in the other thread:
|
|"I'm thinking of changing thedefinition to confirm model in others'
|mind, since the other model. Under the new model, horizontal arrows in
|the object.c diagram mean instance-of relations."
|
|This would be important to know - and it's important for the terminology.
|
|If you are not sure yet - no problem.
I am almost sure. The model will be changed, after we settled "the
term".
matz.
Lyndon Samson
> I am almost sure. The model will be changed, after we settled "the
> term".
>
shadowclass
siblingclass
templateclass
localisedclass
objectcustomiser
singularity
or use a non-english word to define a new label for the concept
ie
satori :-)
Singleton has plenty of alternate meaning unfortunately, especially
outside of the ruby world.
> matz.
>
>
--
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.
George
> I like the idea of using a single, invented word rather than a two
word
> phrase, since we avoid overloaded associations from other languages
and
> contexts. Thus far:
>
> uniclass
> idioclass
> eigenclass
It might be my maths-y background, but I'm a big fan of eigenclass. I'm
not too sure about the meaning of the German ('own',
'characteristic'??), but for those who know a bit of abstract algebra -
eigenvalues, eigenvectors etc - it conjures up some handy images. So I
think it's a winner for a) mathematicians and b) German speakers. Who
could that possibly leave out? ;-)
-- George
[On the other hand, if you don't fall into either of those two camps,
it probably just makes you say 'eh? what the hell is that?'.]
Matt Mower
> It might be my maths-y background, but I'm a big fan of eigenclass. I'm
> not too sure about the meaning of the German ('own',
> 'characteristic'??), but for those who know a bit of abstract algebra -
> eigenvalues, eigenvectors etc - it conjures up some handy images. So I
> think it's a winner for a) mathematicians and b) German speakers. Who
> could that possibly leave out? ;-)
>
> -- George
>
> [On the other hand, if you don't fall into either of those two camps,
> it probably just makes you say 'eh? what the hell is that?'.]
>
This, in itself, might be no bad thing if it motivated you to discover more!
(Ok, I confess, I rather liked eigenclass too <g>)
--
Matt Mower :: http://matt.blogs.it/
Hal Fulton
>
> It might be my maths-y background, but I'm a big fan of eigenclass. I'm
> not too sure about the meaning of the German ('own',
> 'characteristic'??), but for those who know a bit of abstract algebra -
> eigenvalues, eigenvectors etc - it conjures up some handy images. So I
> think it's a winner for a) mathematicians and b) German speakers. Who
> could that possibly leave out? ;-)
>
Truthfully, I'm a fan of it, too, from my physics background rather
than math.
But I don't necessarily recommend it. I don't mind importing terms
from math/physics/German, but the "immediate recognizability" will
be almost, well, nil. :)
On the other hand, that might be a *good* thing, for a term that
is very rare, perhaps unique to Ruby.
>
> [On the other hand, if you don't fall into either of those two camps,
> it probably just makes you say 'eh? what the hell is that?'.]
>
Agreed.
Hal
Steven Jenkins
> It might be my maths-y background, but I'm a big fan of eigenclass. I'm
> not too sure about the meaning of the German ('own',
> 'characteristic'??), but for those who know a bit of abstract algebra -
> eigenvalues, eigenvectors etc - it conjures up some handy images. So I
> think it's a winner for a) mathematicians and b) German speakers. Who
> could that possibly leave out? ;-)
French people. I mean, they think well don't they? I mean, be fair - Pascal.
I like 'eigenclass' too, but I don't really recommend it. It sounds like
showing off.
Has anyone suggested 'essential class'? The word 'essential' is often
used to mean 'indispensible', but 'constituting or being part of the
essence of something; inherent' seems like precisely what we're getting
at here.
Steve
Gavin Kistner
> I was lost in finding proper place in RubyGarden Wiki. Sigh.
> Can someone create a new page there please?
I've placed it at:
http://rubygarden.org/ruby?RenamingSingletonClass
and linked it from http://rubygarden.org/ruby?RubyWishList for now.
I'm in the process of populating the page - just wanted to get this
notice out quickly so someone else didn't also create one.
Gavin Kistner
> On May 9, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>
>> I was lost in finding proper place in RubyGarden Wiki. Sigh.
>> Can someone create a new page there please?
>>
>
> I've placed it at:
> http://rubygarden.org/ruby?RenamingSingletonClass
OK, I'm done throwing content into that page. Those still interested
in this discussion, would you please summarize your 'yay' and 'nay'
votes as bullet points at the bottom of the page?
ES
I tossed in one additional suggestion, #mu.
People who learn ruby will need to learn the concept of these classes
anyway and there is really no sense in trying to cram all of that info
into *one word* in a vain attempt to make it immediately understandable
to people with no background. So just teach them a new word; that will
make it easier to discuss within the group and will reduce confusion
outside of it. My primary votes will go to the 'nonsense' words.
That, and I like the connotations of 'mu' plus it is fun to say!
mu mu muuuuu mu muuu mu
E
--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }
Austin Ziegler
> People who learn ruby will need to learn the concept of these classes
> anyway and there is really no sense in trying to cram all of that info
> into *one word* in a vain attempt to make it immediately understandable
> to people with no background. So just teach them a new word; that will
> make it easier to discuss within the group and will reduce confusion
> outside of it. My primary votes will go to the 'nonsense' words.
>
> That, and I like the connotations of 'mu' plus it is fun to say!
>
> mu mu muuuuu mu muuu mu
..which leads to #muumuu -- the sort of thing you only wear around the house ;)
Christian Neukirchen
> Gavin Kistner wrote:
> I tossed in one additional suggestion, #mu.
>
> People who learn ruby will need to learn the concept of these classes
> anyway and there is really no sense in trying to cram all of that info
> into *one word* in a vain attempt to make it immediately understandable
> to people with no background. So just teach them a new word; that will
> make it easier to discuss within the group and will reduce confusion
> outside of it. My primary votes will go to the 'nonsense' words.
>
> That, and I like the connotations of 'mu' plus it is fun to say!
>
> mu mu muuuuu mu muuu mu
Does a cow have buddha nature?
> E
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneuk...@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
Jacob Fugal
> eigenclass
+1
I really like this one...
Jacob Fugal
Brian Schröder
As a german user I can only add to it:
+1 ich auch
regards,
Brian
--
http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/
multilingual _non rails_ ruby based vocabulary trainer:
http://www.vocabulaire.org/ | http://www.gloser.org/ | http://www.vokabeln.net/
ES
Le 9/5/2005, "Christian Neukirchen" <chneuk...@gmail.com> a écrit:
>ES <rub...@magical-cat.org> writes:
>
>> Gavin Kistner wrote:
>> I tossed in one additional suggestion, #mu.
>>
>> People who learn ruby will need to learn the concept of these classes
>> anyway and there is really no sense in trying to cram all of that info
>> into *one word* in a vain attempt to make it immediately understandable
>> to people with no background. So just teach them a new word; that will
>> make it easier to discuss within the group and will reduce confusion
>> outside of it. My primary votes will go to the 'nonsense' words.
>>
>> That, and I like the connotations of 'mu' plus it is fun to say!
>>
>> mu mu muuuuu mu muuu mu
>
>Does a cow have buddha nature?
The more important question: does Buddha have a cow nature?
>> E
>Christian Neukirchen <chneuk...@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
E
David A. Black
Actually the singleton class embodies more the non-inherent -- i.e.,
the acquired -- properties of a class. I don't think one can acquire
one's essence; one just has it. And "essence" also, to me, suggests
something permanent and unchanging in the midst, perhaps, of
superficial change. That too is not a good fit for the dynamic,
in-the-moment singleton behavior of Ruby objects.
David
--
David A. Black
dbl...@wobblini.net
Steven Jenkins
Well, sure, but no word means precisely that. As in all jargon, we need
a word that's suggestive without being misleading. The real meaning
doesn't come from the word itself; we're just trying to attach a
convenient handle to a pre-existing meaning.
Steve
Aredridel
> expanded, crafted, decorated, tailored, adapted, adjusted,
> transformed, modified.
>
> any of these come close?
"Eigenclass" was suggested on IRC. I like that.
karli...@gmail.com
formal-sounding and will only confuse those who already use the prefix
for it's meaning in mathematics. Idioclass follows Matz's decree of
describing it as per-object, while still providing an intuitive
description of the concept in a single, unique word.
Christoph
>I think 'idioclass' is the best suggestion so far. 'eigenclass' is too
>formal-sounding and will only confuse those who already use the prefix
>for it's meaning in mathematics. Idioclass follows Matz's decree of
>
>
Whats wrong with formal sounding names? - besides, idioclass
sound pretty formal too. Also, there is about a snowball chance
in hell that anyone with a formal education in math might become
confused by the usage of "eigen class/method", infact the term
is fairly descriptive if you know math and/or German.
/Christoph
Randy Kramer
I don't really know what I'm talking about (I'm a newbie) but why not call it
the "self class"? (IIUC, it is the (self) class of an object, for the
purpose of allowing the addition of methods to an object. And that is
(almost) what eigen means, isn't it?)
Randy Kramer
Ilias Lazaridis
There's a dead-lock:
You cannot settle on a (concise) term, when you don't know the
model-changes.
Ok, I extract the (almost sure) planned changes:
a) method to retrieve "<x> class", Object#<x>_class
b) objects become instances of their "<x> class"
(horizontal arrows in "ri Class": "instance-of" relations")
<x> currently: singelton
-
cmd> ri class
+------------------+
| |
Object---->(Object) |
^ ^ ^ ^ |
| | | | |
| | +-----+ +---------+ |
| | | | |
| +-----------+ | |
| | | | |
+------+ | Module--->(Module) |
| | ^ ^ |
OtherClass-->(OtherClass) | | |
| | |
Class---->(Class) |
^ |
| |
+----------------+
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> On May 9, 2005, at 7:53 AM, Gavin Kistner wrote:
>
>> On May 9, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>>
>>> I was lost in finding proper place in RubyGarden Wiki. Sigh.
>>> Can someone create a new page there please?
>>>
>>
>> I've placed it at:
>> http://rubygarden.org/ruby?RenamingSingletonClass
can you please place a link to this thread (ruby-talk archives)?
> OK, I'm done throwing content into that page. Those still interested in
> this discussion, would you please summarize your 'yay' and 'nay' votes
> as bullet points at the bottom of the page?
please note:
The new term will not selected by democracy (vote).
It results out of research, reasoning and rationality.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In message "Re: [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes"
>> <hal...@hypermetrics.com> writes:
>>
>> |If we use such an adjective, I would favor something like:
>> |
>> | - unique
>> | - individual
>> | - solitary
>>
>> Others proposed (forgive me for not mentioning your names, pals):
>
> Can someone possibly create a page with the entries below and the
> template on the central ruby-wiki?
http://rubygarden.org/ruby?RenamingSingletonClass
>
> "
> instructions:
>
> * <x> emphasize on the "per-object" characteristic of the object
> * <x> describes that the class is per-object
> * <x> is an adjective, or a noun that can be used like an adjective.
> * "<x> methods" replaces todays term "singleton methods"
>
> Test Code:
>
> obj.<x>_class
> obj.<x>_methods
> obj.<x>_attributes
>
> -
>
> Usage of the template simplifies the evaluation of the new <x> term.
>
> .
> "
>
> <x> candidates:
>
>> - singular
>> - solo
>> - particular
>> - self
>> - ideoclass
>> - uniclass
>> - instance
>> - custom
>> - tailored
>> - lone
>> - distinct
>> - specific
>> - customized
>> - changed
>> - expanded
>> - crafted
>> - decorated
>> - tailored
>> - adapted
>> - adjusted
>> - transformed
>> - modified
[...]
.
Ilias Lazaridis
suggested terms:
exclusive
extension
proto
prototype
x [unknown, can be internally spoken as <anything>]
-
http://rubygarden.org/ruby?RenamingSingletonClass
suggested terms:
# adapted
# adjunct
# adjusted
# adjutant
# annex
# changed
# class object
# crafted
# custom
# customized
# decorated
# distinct
# ego
# eigenclass
# essential
# expanded
# idioclass
# individual
# instance
# localised
# lone
# modified
# objectcustomiser
# own
# particular
# pouch
# reflexive
# satori
# self
# shadow
# shallow
# sibling
# singular
# singularity
# solitary
# solo
# specific
# tailored
# template
# transformed
# uncle
# uniclass
# unique
# mu
-
I 'close' this thread at this point.
I need some further day's to get more clarity.
.
Dave Brown
> I tossed in one additional suggestion, #mu.
No.
Wait no, that's not an Ilias-like monosyllabic answer. It's the
actual meaning of "mu" in, well, Japanese (and Chinese). Using a
nonsense word is a good suggestion, except that your suggested
word is unfortunately not nonsense. :-) For example, "mu-sen" is
the Japanese word for "wireless"--literally, "no lines".
Saying "the no-class" is even more confusing than "the singleton
class", in my opinion.
--Dave
--
"Kids have it easy today. All they have to listen to is stories about
how back in the '70s we had to listen to stories about how bad it was
back in the '30s."
-- Keith Lynch
ES
> ES <rub...@magical-cat.org> writes:
>
>>I tossed in one additional suggestion, #mu.
>
>
> No.
>
> Wait no, that's not an Ilias-like monosyllabic answer. It's the
> actual meaning of "mu" in, well, Japanese (and Chinese). Using a
> nonsense word is a good suggestion, except that your suggested
> word is unfortunately not nonsense. :-) For example, "mu-sen" is
> the Japanese word for "wireless"--literally, "no lines".
>
> Saying "the no-class" is even more confusing than "the singleton
> class", in my opinion.
#pouch :)
> --Dave
Logan Capaldo
#pouch keeps growing on me. go pouch!
Luke Graham
> #pouch keeps growing on me. go pouch!
its not a bloody kangaroo :P
--
spooq
David A. Black
On Wed, 11 May 2005, Logan Capaldo wrote:
> #pouch keeps growing on me. go pouch!
I know this is a name brainstorming thing, not an implementation
thing, but I still wonder: what exactly would an object's "pouch" be?
A class or module? Or some new, third thing? Would there be a Pouch
class? How would one add methods and/or constants to the pouch?
pouch << obj
or
obj.pouch.pouch_eval { }
? :-)
(Of course methods can be add with def obj.meth, but that doesn't
provide the complete class-scope functionality.)
Actually this isn't so much an implementation thing as an explanation
thing: how would one explain how to do this, and how far would one
have to travel away from Ruby's class/module design to do so?