[Laszlo-dev] [Laszlo-reviews] For Review: Change, 20091120-hqm-i Summary: support mixins on instances

[P T Withington]

instance-class isn't right either.

It's a node without a tag.  The class that makes this node doesn't have a tag, so in that sense the tag for the node is anonymous.  You can't have no tag, you need to have something; and it has to be a valid XML identifier.

So far, anonymous seems like the best choice.

On 2009-11-20, at 17:49, Henry Minsky wrote:

> I didn't like 'anonymous' at all. I was thinking of 'instance-class' but
> that's pretty un-informative too.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:03 PM, P T Withington <ptw at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> Good point.
>> 
>> Back to anonymous?
>> 
>> Is there a better term?
>> 
>> On 2009-11-20, at 17:07, André Bargull wrote:
>> 
>>> I disagree about this point:
>>> I wouldn't call it a `singleton`, because in case of replication the
>> "instance class" might have multiple instances and therefore isn't a
>> singleton.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> [laszlo-reviews -> laszlo-dev]
>>>> 
>>>> I'll try to look at this in just a bit, but I had a thought:
>>>> 
>>>> I wonder if instead of `anonymous` we should use `singleton`, I think
>> that might be more descriptive/accurate.  An "instance class" as we have
>> been calling it is really an instance of a singleton class, a class that
>> will only ever have this one instance as a member, so we don't give it a tag
>> name (which is why we think of it as anonymous).
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Henry Minsky
> Software Architect
> hminsky at laszlosystems.com