I was definitely inspired by this little conversation to make some
more t-shirt designs. Check out the ‘tokui kurasu’, ‘pro
singleton’/‘anti singleton’, and ‘got class’/‘got klass?’ shirts!
I was definitely inspired by this little conversation to make some
more t-shirt designs. Check out the ‘tokui kurasu’, ‘pro
singleton’/‘anti singleton’, and ‘got class’/‘got klass?’ shirts!
T.
In any case, this little shirt has insipired me in other directions
too! As of this day, Aug 15th, 2006, I declare that the oft mentioned
“God particle” of T.O.E. be dubbed the “Singleton particle”. (If this
particle turns out not to be a Boson and there is such a thing as an
Anti-Singleton, then God help us all!
It’s still a little obscure to me but I imagine that’s meant to be
part of its charm
Well, I suppose to be exact the inside of the shirt should say
“pro-singleton” and the outside “anti-singleton” --that would be like
Ruby where there is on #singleton method, but under the hood there are
rb_singleton… refrences. But then nobody would see a “pro-singleton”
message on the inside of a shirt
In any case, this little shirt has insipired me in other directions
too! As of this day, Aug 15th, 2006, I declare that the oft mentioned
“God particle” of T.O.E. be dubbed the “Singleton particle”. (If this
particle turns out not to be a Boson and there is such a thing as an
Anti-Singleton, then God help us all!
T> Well, I suppose to be exact the inside of the shirt should say
T> “pro-singleton” and the outside “anti-singleton” --that would be like
T> Ruby where there is on #singleton method, but under the hood there
are
T> rb_singleton… refrences. But then nobody would see a
“pro-singleton”
T> message on the inside of a shirt
moulon% ruby -e ‘class << Object; self end.dup’
-e:1:in `initialize_copy’: can’t copy singleton class (TypeError)
from -e:1
moulon%
Yes, you’re right. But it has been a slow “turning the shirt inside
out” --differnt names had been used and there is still no direct #singleton_class method.
And in anycase, I still think it’s rather sad that another name can’t
be arrived at, so as to avoid terminology clash wtih “that other
singleton”. I mean, metaclass was abandoned becuase it was too general
and virtual class because of a clash with those in C. Is it so hard to
pick a name that isn’t already being used? And it’s not like it’s a
word being used in the pottery field or some other totally separate
parlance. Singleton has meaning in this very realm: require
‘singleton’.
So maybe the whole “singly”’ thing isn’t so imparative. I’ve been
thinking about the utiltiy of this “legionary” approach in
prototype-based coding for instance.
What does it mean?
