[RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|> Interestingly, I started to use the term before the book was published
|> in 1995. Sad coincidence.
|
|I understand.
|
|But makes it any sense to insist on that?

Until we find a better term. I don't think other terms proposed such
as "exclusive class" are better. I assume Ruby users smart enough to
deal with them by context until the time.

matz.

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|> Interestingly, I started to use the term before the book was published
|> in 1995. Sad coincidence.
|
|I understand.
|
|But makes it any sense to insist on that?

Until we find a better term.

who is "we"?

The Japanese language development list?

"Please act, and initialize a terminology change."

here, in the core of the ruby community.

I don't think other terms proposed such
as "exclusive class" are better.

even the term "bingo-bongo class" is better.

I assume Ruby users smart enough to
deal with them by context until the time.

There are newcomers.

You should show more respect against them.

..

 

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|> I don't think other terms proposed such
|> as "exclusive class" are better.
|
|even the term "bingo-bongo class" is better.

This statement implies you think avoiding name conflict is more
important than how terms describe the concept. I think otherwise.

I should not have named my language "Ruby" if I followed your opinion;
perhaps, it would be "bingo-bongo".

|> I assume Ruby users smart enough to
|> deal with them by context until the time.
|
|There are newcomers.

I assume most of newcomers are capable to understand the term very
quick. Am I too optimistic?

matz.

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|> I don't think other terms proposed such
|> as "exclusive class" are better.
|
|even the term "bingo-bongo class" is better.

This statement implies you think avoiding name conflict is more
important than how terms describe the concept.

Avoiding name conflict is essential for any recognition process.

This is too essential to even discuss it here.

I think otherwise.

even if:

the term "singleton class" is still false.

A "class" has instances.

The "singleton class" has not.

I should not have named my language "Ruby"

this is not "your" language.

You've integrated existing concepts [which have existing terminology].

Possibly you've added new concepts (without researching enouth to find
concise new terminology).

[of course there's the possibility, that the plan was to implement e.g.
real "metaclasses", but you've failed to do so. Then you have to clarify
this]

if I followed your opinion;

"Ruby" was not used in the Domain (or Namespace) "Programming Languages".

Thus you was free to name it "Ruby".

perhaps, it would be "bingo-bongo".

This is nonsense.

|> I assume Ruby users smart enough to
|> deal with them by context until the time.
|
|There are newcomers.

I assume most of newcomers are capable to understand the term very
quick. Am I too optimistic?

no.

Just too egocentric.

Perhaps a little bit stubborn?

Maybe arrogant?

..

 

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

Hi,

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|the term "singleton class" is still false.
|
|A "class" has instances.
|
|The "singleton class" has not.

I'm not sure what you meant. If "singleton class" exists, it has an
instance. It would be an object of which the singleton class holds
attributes.

|You've integrated existing concepts [which have existing terminology].

Then tell me the "existing" term for this concept, which I failed to
find in the past. I don't think "exclusive class" is it.

I'm not going to discuss about my personality. It's too off topic
here.

matz.

 

[Austin Ziegler]

|> I assume Ruby users smart enough to
|> deal with them by context until the time.
|There are newcomers.
I assume most of newcomers are capable to understand the term very
quick. Am I too optimistic?

Not at all.

I don't think that anyone else who has come to Ruby and posted on
ruby-talk in the last three years -- how long I think I've been
around -- has not grasped this after a single round of emails.

Let me rephrase that for clarity: in my memory of the last three
years, the person to whom you responded is the only person who
continues to insist that this term is confusing and is a problem.

There is the ongoing discussion about whether there might be a
better term, but no one, at least as far as I can read, is
*confused* about the meaning here.

-austin

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Hi,

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|the term "singleton class" is still false.
|
|A "class" has instances.
|
|The "singleton class" has not.

I'm not sure what you meant.

I'm sorry, I was not precise:

I meant:

The [Ruby] "singleton class" has not.

If "singleton class" exists, it has an
instance. It would be an object of which the singleton class holds
attributes.

But this object is _not_ an instance of the "singleton class".

There is a relation, but not an OO 'instance of' one.

Concretely, in the diagramm V1.3 this means:

"john" is an instance of class "Talker"
"john" has somehow a dependency to the "singleton class" (exclusive
class) "class:talker:john"

http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/index.html

"class:talker:john" has _no_ observable instances.

[thus it's not a class, and thus "exclusive class" is somehow a bad naming]

|You've integrated existing concepts [which have existing terminology].

Then tell me the "existing" term for this concept, which I failed to
find in the past.

I don't know it yet.

I don't think "exclusive class" is it.

I agree with you, "exclusive class" isn't the perfect pick.

[although it comes close]

I've prepared a new thread with a new suggestion, but currently there's
too much noise on the list.

I will post it later(~3h) or tomorrow (~ 20h).

I'm not going to discuss about my personality. It's too off topic
here.

you have startet this with: "Am I too optimistic?"

and: essentially it's not off-topic (as your personality is directly
related with this topic), but I will respect you wish.

..

 

[Jon A. Lambert]

There is a relation, but not an OO 'instance of' one.

Concretely, in the diagramm V1.3 this means:

The answer is really very simple, and much as I loathe to repeat it again
(well not really)

UML is broken!

If it cannot model Ruby correctly then it cannot be "unified".
Bug Booch and Rumbaugh about their arrogance.

ObNotetoHonorableMrMatsumoto:
Not sure if it was a typo but "mataclass" is perfect.

 

[Mark Hubbart]

the term "singleton class" is still false.

This is the only part I want to comment on. You keep using the word
false, when you mean either "imprecise" or "wrong". Your own usage of
the word "false" is, in itself, extremely imprecise. Any english
speaker is probably laughing at the usage whenever they see you use
it, and probably most of the non-native english speakers as well.

False means "untrue". An assertion can be described as either true or
untrue; a term can only be described by it's level of precision, not
it's veracity (though, an assertion that the term is precise could be
contested on it's veracity).

Constraining yourself to using precise terminology while complaining
about the precision of terminology seems rather important. But then,
hey, I may be wrong.

Also, insulting someone (especially someone who has not insulted you)
is rude. Especially when they don't really *have* to talk to you in
the first place, and are only doing it because they are very polite.

If you must post on this list, please try to be civil, at least
towards those who are civil towards you.

cheers,
Mark

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

This is the only part I want to comment on. You keep using the word
false, when you mean either "imprecise" or "wrong". Your own usage of
the word "false" is, in itself, extremely imprecise. Any english
speaker is probably laughing at the usage whenever they see you use
it, and probably most of the non-native english speakers as well.
ok

False means "untrue". An assertion can be described as either true or
untrue; a term can only be described by it's level of precision, not
it's veracity (though, an assertion that the term is precise could be
contested on it's veracity).

Constraining yourself to using precise terminology while complaining
about the precision of terminology seems rather important. But then,
hey, I may be wrong.

No, you are right.

non has complained till now.

-

faulty, deficient, defectively

I think I will use faulty.

Thank you for your constructive criticism.

Also, insulting someone (especially someone who has not insulted you)
is rude. Especially when they don't really *have* to talk to you in
the first place, and are only doing it because they are very polite.

I've not insulted anyone.

If you must post on this list, please try to be civil, at least
towards those who are civil towards you.

I don't have to try this.

I simply do it.

cheers,
Mark

..

 

[gabriele renzi]

Yukihiro Matsumoto ha scritto:
<snip all>

Well, let me say this is one of the best examples of self control I've
ever seen.
Matz, congrats you are some kind of good karma generator

 

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

Ilias,

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|> If "singleton class" exists, it has an
|> instance. It would be an object of which the singleton class holds
|> attributes.
|
|But this object is _not_ an instance of the "singleton class".

Not, in your diagram and definition, and not, in my explained language
model. But virtually everyone except us (me and you, Ilias) seem to
have the other model in mind. The object is an instance of the
singleton class in that model. It is also in the current
implementation of the interpreter. I'm thinking of changing the
definition 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.

The obstacle is that if I choose the new model, I have to name an
official name to "singleton class", which I agree is not the best term
for it.

|> |You've integrated existing concepts [which have existing terminology].
|>
|> Then tell me the "existing" term for this concept, which I failed to
|> find in the past.
|
|I don't know it yet.

Then please come back again when you find the name, preferably
suitable under the new model.

matz.

 

[Saynatkari]

Ilias,

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|> If "singleton class" exists, it has an
|> instance. It would be an object of which the singleton class holds
|> attributes.
|
|But this object is _not_ an instance of the "singleton class".

Not, in your diagram and definition, and not, in my explained language
model. But virtually everyone except us (me and you, Ilias) seem to
have the other model in mind. The object is an instance of the
singleton class in that model. It is also in the current
implementation of the interpreter. I'm thinking of changing the
definition 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.

People have a tendency to find complexity where there is none

As far as a new model goes, I would assume everyone will be
happy as long as one can metaprogram as easily as currently.

The obstacle is that if I choose the new model, I have to name an
official name to "singleton class", which I agree is not the best term
for it.

|> |You've integrated existing concepts [which have existing terminology].
|>
|> Then tell me the "existing" term for this concept, which I failed to
|> find in the past.
|
|I don't know it yet.

Then please come back again when you find the name, preferably
suitable under the new model.

Etymologically, 'idioclass' (as in an 'idiom') is probably the most
suitable choice [1]. There was also a poll of some sort on Rubyforge,
I think, if you want to see folks weighing in on their choice.

matz.

E

[1] http://www.etymology.com

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Ilias,

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|> If "singleton class" exists, it has an
|> instance. It would be an object of which the singleton class holds
|> attributes.
|
|But this object is _not_ an instance of the "singleton class".

Not, in your diagram and definition,

My diagramm reflects the current OO-observable implementation of ruby
(=reality).

and not, in my explained language model.

=> "explained language model", where?

But virtually everyone except us (me and you, Ilias) seem to
have the other model in mind.

This is irrelevant.

Of course they have to adjust their minds to the _real_ existent model
and implemented model (see "explained language model" and see diagramm)

The object is an instance of the singleton class in that model.
ok

It is also in the current implementation of the interpreter.

ok [internally, non observable.]

I'm thinking of changing the
definition to confirm model in others' mind, since the other model.

I sense a problem - but cannot explain it.

Under the new model, horizontal arrows in the object.c diagram mean
instance-of relations.

I understand.

The obstacle is that if I choose the new model, I have to name an
official name to "singleton class", which I agree is not the best term
for it.
ok

|> |You've integrated existing concepts [which have existing terminology].
|>
|> Then tell me the "existing" term for this concept, which I failed to
|> find in the past.
|
|I don't know it yet.

Then please come back again when you find the name, preferably
suitable under the new model.

You sent me away to make this research myself?

I suggest Collaboration.

As you see, I open the results _and_ my understanding process thus
others can benefit from it [although their ego won't mostly not let them
admit this]

I depend on some answers to analytical questions to complete earlier.

I don't think that it would be fair to figure out things instead of
simply asking them.

Please look at the new thread:

[ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/fc3ff9ed91d7a827

It would be nice if you could comment on the plans within this thread.

I could then prepare an updated diagramm.

..

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Yukihiro Matsumoto ha scritto:
<snip all>

Well, let me say this is one of the best examples of self control I've
ever seen.

Not exactly.

It is an example of an efficient, slightly emotionally loaded but
self-regulating public conversation [which remained nearly uninterupted].

Matz, congrats you are some kind of good karma generator

..

 

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

Hi,

In message "Re: [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?"

|> Then please come back again when you find the name, preferably
|> suitable under the new model.
|
|You sent me away to make this research myself?

No. I will seek for myself. But to tell the truth, I don't hope
much, since I have never had a better term than 'singleton class'
after the years of seeking "the term". You may have fresh idea.

|[ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes

I don't think these are better for good reasons. I will follow up in
that thread.

matz.